UNDP CONTRIBUTION TO SOUTH-SOUTH COOPERATION

Evaluation Office, December 2007United Nations Development Programme

SOUTH-SOUTHPARTNERSHIPS

UNDP CONTRIBUTION TO SOUTH-SOUTH COOPERATION

EVALUATION OF

Copyright © UNDP 2007, all rights reserved.Manufactured in the United States of America

Design: Suazion, Inc. (NY, suazion.com) Production: A.K. Office Supplies (NY)

Team Leader Talaat Abdel-Malek, Executive Director, Project Evaluation & Macro-economics Analysis, Government of Egypt and Professor of Economics, American University in Cairo

Team Members A.K. Shiva Kumar, Professor,Institute for Human Development, New Delhi, India

William Tabb, Professor Emeritus, City University of New York

Peter Metcalf, UN Resident Coordinator and UNDP Resident Representative (Retired)

S. Nanthikesan, Senior Evaluation Advisor, UNDP

With participation by Professor Celina Sousa, University of Bahia,Brazil, and editorial contribution from Alex Marshall

Evaluation Office Task Manager S. Nanthikesan, Senior Evaluation Advisor, UNDP

Advisory Panel Stephen Brown, Deputy Executive Director,International Trade Center, Geneva

Mary Chinery-Hesse, Vice-Chairman,National Planning Commission, Ghana

Jose Antonio Ocampo, former Under Secretary General, UN DESA

Sanjay Reddy, Professor, Barnard College, Columbia University

Research Support Maggie KamelTega ShivuteMichelle SyNayma Qayum

Editor Jeffrey Stern, Suazion

EVALUATION TEAM

EVALUATION OF SOUTH-SOUTH COOPERATION IN UNDP

F O R E W O R D i

Over the past 30 years, there has been a remark-able upsurge in South-South cooperation. Sustainedeconomic growth since the late 1980s has led toan increasing number of developing countriesbecoming regional centres of economic dynamism.To support emerging needs, member countriesexpect the United Nations development systemto mainstream South-South cooperation as across-cutting theme in its work.

Promoting and supporting South-South cooper-ation has been an expressed priority for UNDP formany decades, most recently with the 2004–2007Multi-Year Funding Framework. The Frameworkexplicitly states that South-South Cooperationwould be a driver of development effectiveness inall areas of work. In 1974, the General Assemblyestablished the Special Unit for South-SouthCooperation within UNDP, in order to spearheadsupport to South-South cooperation withinUNDP and the UN system. The programmaticwork of the Special Unit has been guided in recentyears by a South-South Cooperation Frameworkthat is approved by the Executive Board of UNDP.Prior to the approval of a fourth cooperationframework for South-South cooperation in 2008,the Executive Board requested the EvaluationOffice to conduct an independent forward-lookingevaluation of results achieved.

This report presents the outcome of the evalua-tion, which looks at the effectiveness of the ThirdCooperation Framework managed by the SpecialUnit, and also assesses the results achieved by theinclusion of South-South cooperation as a driverin UNDP programmatic work. The scope of theevaluation covers relevant UNDP-supportedprogrammes at the country, regional and globallevels in all geographic regions from 1996 to thepresent. The analysis is based on evidencecollected from case studies in seven countries(Barbados, Brazil, China, Guatemala, Mali, SouthAfrica and Thailand), an in-depth desk review in

India, consultations with headquarters of UNsystem agencies in New York and Geneva, anelectronic survey of UN country teams in allregions, consultations with Permanent Missions inNew York, and is supplemented by a desk reviewof related evaluative material. Altogether, 248stakeholders were interviewed, and 149 responsesfrom 51 UN country teams were analysed.

A key issue faced by the evaluation was the lackof an agreed definition of South-South cooperationwithin UNDP. In the absence of a commonunderstanding, the evaluation uses the definitionadopted by the General Assembly in 2003,describing South-South cooperation as a processby which two or more developing countriesinitiate and pursue development through thecooperative exchange of multi-dimensionalknowledge, resources, skills and technical know-how through different types of cooperation.

The evaluation reaches four important conclu-sions. First, while the conceptual areas of theThird Cooperation Framework for South-SouthCooperation were valid, the effectiveness of the framework was constrained by a mismatchamong the mandate, resources and implementationstrategy adopted by the Special Unit. Second,UNDP has not developed a robust and proactivecorporate strategy to promote South-Southcooperation. There is a lack of common under-standing, no incentives and little systematiccodification of experience. Third, at the countryand regional levels, UNDP has been responsiveto demand, and a number of initiatives wereundertaken. But the results of these initiativeswere affected by the absence of a corporatestrategy that commits capacity and resources andenables learning from experience. Fourth, theSpecial Unit and UNDP have not leveraged theirparticular and combined strengths and capacitiesto serve countries more effectively.

FOREWORD

F O R E W O R Di i

The evaluation recommends that the SpecialUnit pay particular attention to achieving moreeffective and sustainable results. While the areasof the Fourth Cooperation Framework maybroadly remain the same, there needs to be afundamental change in the implementationstrategy. The strict criteria established by inter-governmental processes should be used inselecting initiatives under the cooperationframework, and transparent and systematicconsultations should precede implementation.The evaluation strongly recommends that theSpecial Unit work closely with appropriate UNsystem agency(s) in developing pilot initiatives,so that the Special Unit can have an exit strategyafter playing a catalytic role, and that govern-ment(s) concerned can continue to draw on UNexpertise from a UN agency, if so required.

The evaluation recommends that UNDP urgentlydevelop a corporate strategy on South-Southcooperation that builds on positive initiatives atthe country and regional levels, addressesemerging issues, integrates all programme frame-works, and is underpinned by resources, incentivesand accountability. And finally, the evaluationstresses the need for UNDP and the Special Unitto define clear collaborative arrangements towork more effectively in order to codifyknowledge and leverage the UN developmentsystem in supporting South-South cooperation.

The insights provided by Executive Boardmembers, governments, international partners,members of civil society and colleagues in theUN system enabled the team to collect andvalidate a rich set of perceptions and evidence onpast performance and future directions forUNDP in South-South cooperation. I wouldparticularly like to thank colleagues in the SpecialUnit, the Resident Representatives and theircolleagues in the case study countries, andUNDP colleagues in New York for their unstint-ing collaboration during this evaluation.

This report is the result of the professionaldedication of a number of people. The EvaluationOffice acknowledges the contributions of the

independent evaluation team that was led byTalaat Abdel-Malek and included A.K. ShivaKumar, William Tabb, Celina Souza, Peter Metcalfand S. Nanthikesan. Experts from the case studycountries where case studies were conducted,Kamal M. Chenoy (India), Cecilia Skinner-Klee(Guatemala), and Humphrey Wattanga (SouthAfrica), contributed to the evaluation.

The Evaluation Office invited leading experts toserve on an independent advisory panel for theevaluation. I would like to express our gratitudeto Stephen Brown (Deputy Executive Director,International Trade Center, Geneva), MaryChinery-Hesse (Vice-Chairman, NationalPlanning Commission, Ghana), Jose Antonio-Ocampo (former Under Secretary General, UNDepartment of Economic and Social Affairs) andSanjay Reddy (Professor, Barnard College,Columbia University) for their advice andsuggestions which strengthened the report.

The evaluation was task-managed in the EvaluationOffice by S. Nanthikesan, Senior EvaluationAdvisor and Khaled Ehsan, Evaluation Advisor.Research support was provided by Maggie Kamel,Tega Shivute, Michelle Sy and Nayma Qayum.Michelle Sy handled administrative support andAnish Pradhan provided information technologyand technical support to the electronic surveyand the publication process. I would also like toexpress my appreciation to Alex Marshall, for hisextensive editorial contribution, and to JeffreyStern of Suazion, Inc., editor of this report.

As the report underlines, South-South cooperationis rapidly taking centre stage in developmentcooperation. We hope that this evaluation willenable UNDP to respond more systematically andeffectively in supporting developing countries touse southern knowledge and solutions to enhancethe well-being of their people.

Saraswathi MenonDirector, UNDP Evaluation Office

C O N T E N T S i i i

Acronyms and Abbreviations iv

Executive Summary v

1. Introduction 1

1.1 Rationale and Objectives 11.2 Scope, Approach and Methodology 4

2. UNDP and South-South Cooperation since 1996 7

2.1 History 72.2 Mandate 72.3 Programmatic Activities 9

3. Key Findings 21

3.1 Approaches to Promote South-South Cooperation 223.2 Making the Most of Strengths and Institutional Capacity to Promote

South-South Cooperation 253.3 Incentive Structures and Resources to Promote South-South Cooperation 283.4 Preparedness to Meet Emerging Challenges 29

4. Conclusions and Recommendations 31

4.1 Conclusions 314.2 Recommendations 33

Annexes

1. Terms of Reference 372. People Consulted 413. References 494. Survey Questions and Responses 515. Indicators 55

Tables

Table 2.1 Distribution of Special Unit Projects under the Third Cooperation Framework 10Table 2.2 Resources for the Special Unit 12Table 2.3 Summary of Resources Managed by the Special Unit

for South-South Cooperation, 2005–2007 13Table 2.4 Special Unit Staffing 13Table 3.1 Effectiveness of the Activities of the Special Unit to Mainstream

South-South Cooperation in UNDP 26

CONTENTS

A C R O N Y M S A N D A B B R E V I A T I O N Si v

ASEAN Association of Southeast Asian Nations

BAPA Buenos Aires Plan of Action

BCPR Bureau for Crisis Prevention and Recovery

BDP Bureau for Development Policy

CPD Country programme document

GCF Global Cooperation Framework

GEF Global Environment Facility

HDR Human Development Report

HDRO Human Development Report Office

HLC High-Level Committee (on the Review of TCDC/SSC)

MDG Millennium Development Goal

MYFF Multi-Year Funding Framework

NEPAD New Partnership for Africa’s Development

NGO Non-governmental organization

NHDR National Human Development Report

SGP Small Grants Programme

SMEs Small and medium enterprises

TCDC Technical Cooperation among Developing Countries

SURF Subregional resource facility

UN United Nations

UNCT United Nations Country Team

UNDAF United Nations Development Assistance Framework

UNDP United Nations Development Programme

WIDE Web of Information for Development

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y v

I. INTRODUCTION

This report sets out the findings and recommen-dations of the evaluation of UNDP contributionto South-South cooperation. This evaluationfocused on: the assessment of the Third CooperationFramework for South-South Cooperation,managed by the Special Unit for South-SouthCooperation; UNDP efforts in promoting andsupporting South-South cooperation; and theeffectiveness of the collaboration betweenUNDP and the Special Unit. The assessment issituated within relevant intergovernmentalmandates for UNDP and the Special Unit, aswell as the emerging realities of South-Southcooperation. The scope of the study covers theperiod 1996 to 2007 and all geographic regions.

II. CONTEXT

Over the past 30 years, there has been a remark-able upsurge in South-South cooperation.Sustained economic growth since the late 1980shas led to an increasing number of developingcountries becoming regional centres of economicdynamism. South-South trade has been growingand made up 26 percent of developing-countryexports in 2004, and many developing countrieshave accumulated large financial surpluses.During the 1990s, South-South foreign directinvestment flows grew faster than North-Southflows. The number of large Southern transna-tional corporations grew from just 19 in 1990 to58 by 2005.

Much of the growth in South-South cooperationis happening without the participation of theUnited Nations development system, providing awelcome indication of effective leadership andcapacity in the South. Nevertheless, the changinginternational environment has increased demandson the United Nations system. While mutualcooperation between developing countries isgrowing, there is concurrent demand for

multilateral organizations to: support efforts toguide the flow of resources, in order to ensurethat everyone benefits from South-Southcooperation; draw attention to the problems and challenges faced by developing countries;and encourage mutual support. Given itsuniversal presence and neutrality, membercountries expect the United Nations system tomainstream South-South cooperation as a cross-cutting theme in its work. In addition, membersexpect the UN system to respond robustly toreports of slow progress in many developingcountries towards the Millennium DevelopmentGoals (MDGs) and other internationally agreedupon development goals.

UNDP is expected to help build capacities incountries of the South in order to support theachievement of their development goals, includingthe MDGs. South-South cooperation is expectedto be an integral part of UNDP work, given thestated UNDP positioning as a knowledge-basedorganization, its role in the exchange of develop-ment experience through its global network ofcountry offices and its support to the SpecialUnit for South-South Cooperation.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVE

This evaluation was requested by the UNDPExecutive Board and is part of the agenda of theUNDP Evaluation Office, approved by theBoard in June 2006. The evaluation underpinsthe Administrator’s substantive accountability tothe Executive Board. Findings of the evaluationwill provide substantive inputs to the FourthCooperation Framework for South-SouthCooperation (2008–2010), to be presented to theBoard in January 2008, and to the implementa-tion of the UNDP strategic plan, 2008–2011.

The objective of this evaluation was to assess theUNDP contribution to South-South cooperationover the past decade and the performance of

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Yv i

the Third Cooperation Framework for South-South Cooperation. The evaluation sought toprovide major ‘lessons learned’ by assessing what worked and why. As such, this report offers recommendations for strengthening theeffectiveness of future programming efforts inSouth-South cooperation.

III. APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY

This evaluation addressed the organizationalstrategy of UNDP and its initiatives to promoteSouth-South cooperation at the global, regionaland country levels. At the same time, the evaluation assessed the implementation of theThird Cooperation Framework for South-SouthCooperation, as well as the nature and extent ofinteraction between the Special Unit and UNDP.The evaluation did not cover the full mandate ofthe Special Unit for South-South Cooperation,detailed subsequently.

This evaluation addressed key issues, including:

n The nature and extent of support provided bythe Special Unit and UNDP in promotingand expanding South-South cooperation;

n The ability of UNDP and the Special Unit to learn from experience in South-Southcooperation, in order to strengthen andinstitutionalize support to such cooperationacross all UNDP practice areas;

n The appropriateness, relevance, effectivenessand sustainability of UNDP efforts to meetvaried and evolving demands, in order tostrengthen and expand South-South cooper-ation; and

n UNDP preparedness to address emergingdemands in South-South cooperation.

The evaluation gathered evidence through eightcountry case studies. The process included: a deskstudy; a desk study of relevant secondarymaterial; interviews with staff in Geneva andNew York; and an electronic survey of UnitedNations units in programme countries. Given

wide variations in the practice of South-Southcooperation and limited time and resources,random selection was not feasible. Adopting apurposive approach, Barbados, Brazil, China,Guatemala, Mali, South Africa and Thailandwere selected to reflect varied experience inSouth-South cooperation, regional distributionand geographical constraints (e.g., Small IslandDeveloping States and landlocked developingcountries). An in-depth desk study was alsoconducted in India, and Brazil was chosen as thepilot study.

The evaluation consulted over 248 stakeholdersin Geneva, New York and case study countries. Ineach case study country, stakeholders includedthe United Nations Country Team, governmentofficials, bilateral donors, members of civilsocieties and UNDP country office staff. Otherstakeholders included UNDP headquarters units,United Nations organizations in New York andGeneva, and permanent missions of the UnitedNations Member States.

The electronic survey was designed to gatheressential information about South-South cooper-ation activities and perceptions. The survey was addressed to United Nations ResidentCoordinators, who in turn forwarded it to othercountry team members. Responses were receivedfrom 149 members of United Nations CountryTeams from 51 countries, including all ResidentRepresentatives from these countries.

Secondary evidence was gathered from previousUNDP evaluations of the Second GlobalCooperation Framework and four regionalframeworks, including Africa, Arab States,Asia and the Pacific, and Latin America and the Caribbean.

IV. HISTORY AND MANDATE

In response to mounting pressure for a neweconomic order during the 1970s, and in supportof the principle of collective self-reliance amongdeveloping countries, United Nations GeneralAssembly resolution 3251 established the Special

E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y v i i

Unit for Technical Cooperation amongDeveloping Countries (TCDC) within UNDP.In 1978, following a conference on TCDC, theBuenos Aires Plan of Action proposed a set ofguiding principles and an action plan forpromoting and implementing TCDC, withspecific recommendations for the United Nationsdevelopment system.

General Assembly resolution 33/144 (sub-sequently elaborated by the High-LevelCommittee on South-South Cooperation andthe UNDP Executive Board) charged the SpecialUnit with:

n Facilitating coordination of the promotionaland other TCDC activities of the UnitedNations development system;

n Coordinating TCDC matters within UNDP;

n Carrying out research studies and analyses ofTCDC issues and problems;

n Promoting wider use of the capacities ofdeveloping countries;

n Developing and strengthening the informa-tion referral system, now known as the Webof Information for Development (WIDE),and the inquiry service, and promoting theirbroader use through appropriate linkageswith information systems in other organiza-tions of the United Nations developmentsystem and in national institutions; and

n Mobilizing resources for TCDC.

The High-Level Committee on the Review ofTCDC was established in 1980 as the highestpolicy and oversight body under and reporting tothe General Assembly. In addition to its respon-sibilities as the global and UN system-wideadvocate, catalyst and resource mobilizer of South-South cooperation, the Special Unit for South-South Cooperation was charged with being thesubstantive secretariat for the Committee.

The Executive Board of UNDP, in its decision2004/32, stated that South-South cooperationshould be considered a driver of development

effectiveness and be incorporated in the SecondMulti-Year Funding Framework (2004–2007).

More recently, the Executive Board, in itsdecision 2007/32, reiterated that UNDP shouldpromote South-South cooperation by steppingup efforts to seek South-South solutions in all itsfocus areas as a way of enhancing the exchange ofbest practices and support among developingcountries, regardless of their levels of develop-ment. The decision also required the UNDPAdministrator, in consultation with the ExecutiveBoard, to establish measurable targets for theSpecial Unit for South-South Cooperation. Inaddition, the decision emphasized that UNDPshould take a human development-based approachto programming.

V. PROGRAMMATIC ACTIVITIES

Three cooperation frameworks approved by theExecutive Board of UNDP have provided thestructure for the work of the Special Unit since1997. The three key elements of the ThirdCooperation Framework for South-SouthCooperation are: policy advocacy, dialogue andpromotion; public-private partnerships; andsharing Southern development knowledge.Funding comes from three sources: UNDPregular (‘core’) resources; resources mobilized bythe Special Unit; and funds managed by theSpecial Unit. In real terms, annual resourcesavailable to the Special Unit have declined overthe past decade, though the nominal value hasnot changed. Regular resources available to theSpecial Unit have also declined.

UNDP pursues South-South cooperation inglobal, regional and country programmes, eitheras a modality to improve programme perform-ance or with South-South cooperation as theprogramme goal. Global initiatives come underthe global programme managed by the Bureaufor Development Policy; regional programmes aremanaged by the regional bureaux; and countryprogrammes are developed and implemented by country offices in close partnership withnational governments.

E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Yv i i i

Communities of practice, or ‘knowledgenetworks’, are linked to the global programmeand are designed to position UNDP as aknowledge-based organization. Knowledgenetworks help those working in similar practiceor thematic areas to share Southern experienceand knowledge. The networks are continuing togrow and are widely used by members.

Regional programmes seek to address challengesin areas such as: regional public goods; trafficking;drugs; HIV/AIDS; disaster prevention andresponse; water supply and use; and environmen-tal management. Regional programmes enablecountries to advocate collectively for equitableand transparent trade regimes and other areas ofcommon interest.

Responses to surveys and case studies show thatit is common for country offices to seek solutionsand expertise from developing countries withsimilar experience, often through knowledgenetworks or communities of practice, and, insome instances, through face-to-face exchanges. Insuch examples, South-South cooperation serves asa modality to identify best development practices.

Institutional links between the operations ofUNDP and the Special Unit for South-SouthCooperation have evolved over the years. Since1997, three cooperation frameworks have formal-ized collaborative arrangements. The SecondCooperation Framework, for instance, sought todevelop a strategy to mainstream South-Southcooperation within UNDP, as part of theFramework’s efforts to mainstream South-Southcooperation in the United Nations system.

The Special Unit provides guidance forpromoting South-South cooperation in UNDP.Revised Guidelines for the Review of Policies andProcedures Concerning TCDC, issued by theSpecial Unit in 1997, has been in use by UnitedNations organizations ever since. This evaluationnoted that the Director of the Special Unit hadpreviously been a member of the ExecutiveCommittee of UNDP, but was not a member ofthe Operations Group that replaced it.

UNDP commitments to support and promoteSouth-South cooperation included:

n In the 1992–1996 programme cycle, UNDPidentified TCDC as one of its six priorityprogrammes and allocated resources to theSpecial Unit’s activities.

n In response to the request from the High-Level Committee for South-South Cooperationat its 10th session, UNDP allocated 0.5 percent(an estimated $15 million) of overall pro-gramme resources to the Special Unit underthe First Cooperation Framework forTCDC, 1997–1999.

n The UNDP Administrator announced in1997 that, as a matter of corporate policy,TCDC would receive first consideration in UNDP programming and be main-streamed in all UNDP programmes andprojects. The Administrator also stated that support to TCDC would become one of the core responsibilities of UNDPResident Representatives in the 1997–1999programme cycle.

n The UNDP 2004–2007 Multi-Year FundingFramework recognized South-South cooper-ation as one of the six ‘drivers’ of develop-ment effectiveness, to be consciouslyintegrated into UNDP programming.

VI. KEY FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This evaluation recognized that the effectivenessof UNDP programmes in promoting andsupporting South-South cooperation dependsupon: the priority each country places on South-South cooperation; the demand from programmecountries to involve UNDP; and UNDP capacityto provide support. The governmental expertpanel convened by the Administrator in 1989identified the following constraints to realizingthe full potential of TCDC in countries and theUnited Nations system: lack of awareness ofpotential, as well as lack of information onusefulness and applicability; lack of effective focalpoints; lack of policies and procedures; and

E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y i x

shortage of funds. This evaluation found thatsuch constraints persist.

UNDP and the Special Unit have amassedconsiderable experience in South-South cooper-ation and are well positioned to play a moreactive and effective role in supporting andpromoting it. UNDP has expressed a strongcommitment to South-South cooperation in itsstrategic plans. However, UNDP and the SpecialUnit have been unable to fully deliver on theirmandate to promote and support South-Southcooperation. The electronic survey showed thatonly 19 percent of responding United NationsCountry Team members and 22 percent ofresponding Resident Representatives felt that the overall UNDP contribution to promotingSouth-South cooperation over the past five yearshad been ‘effective’ or ‘very effective’. Thefollowing discussion presents the conclusions ofthis study in understanding the performance ofUNDP and the Special Unit in contributing toSouth-South cooperation.

A. CONCLUSIONS

Conclusion 1: The effectiveness of supportunder the Third Cooperation Framework forSouth-South Cooperation is constrained by themismatch among the mandate, resources andimplementation strategy of the Special Unit.

The mandate of the Special Unit for South-South Cooperation is extensive, not only relativeto UNDP but in absolute terms. Evolving andexpanding over time, the Special Unit functionsto: act as secretariat to the High-LevelCommittee on South-South Cooperation;coordinate United Nations system-wide South-South cooperation efforts; mobilize resources andmanage funds for South-South cooperation; andsupport South-South cooperation within theUnited Nations development system. TheSpecial Unit has difficulty in managing all theactivities needed under such a broad mandatewith its 15 professional staff members andavailable fiscal resources of $3.5 million perannum in regular resources and $5.5 million perannum in other resources.

The three platforms of the Third CooperationFramework for South-South Cooperationprovide a useful conceptual tool for identifyingareas of intervention: a platform to support policydialogue, with emphasis on mainstreamingSouth-South cooperation as a driver of develop-ment effectiveness; a platform to help create anenabling environment for public-private partner-ship mechanisms for South-South businesscollaboration and technical exchange; and aplatform to manage and share developmentknowledge. However, in developing initiatives,evidence indicates that the Special Unit paidinsufficient attention to assessing and prioritizingdemand from consultations with target countries.Consequently, the Special Unit’s activities are toonumerous and diffused, further constraining itsresources and capacity and limiting its ability torespond to requests for support.

In 2003, the High-Level Committee and theGeneral Assembly approved the Special Unit-developed Revised Guidelines for the Review ofPolices and Procedures Concerning South-SouthCooperation (document TCDC/13/3 of theHigh-Level Committee on the Review ofTCDC), including a common results frameworkfor the United Nations development systemengaged in South-South cooperation. However,the Special Unit itself continues to report activi-ties as results and has not produced a resultsframework that ties outputs and outcomes toclearly defined qualitative and quantitativeindicators. Consequently, its reviews offer limitedevaluative evidence and learning opportunities.

Conclusion 2: At the corporate level, UNDPhas not developed a robust and proactiveapproach to South-South cooperation.

UNDP is mandated to support and promoteSouth-South cooperation by hosting the SpecialUnit for South-South Cooperation and throughall relevant UNDP-supported programmes.

UNDP does not have a clear strategic frame-work to leverage the Special Unit and otherprogrammes to support South-South coopera-

E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Yx

tion. South-South cooperation was declared to be a driver of development effectiveness in the Second Multi-Year Funding Framework(2004–2007), and as a principle of developmenteffectiveness in the UNDP Strategic Plan(2008–2011). Yet these plans did not articulatethe UNDP strategic priorities, deliverables and modalities of engagement in South-South cooperation.

There are no clear strategies or institutionalmechanisms to adequately respond to thedynamic changes occurring in South-Southcooperation. Examples of such changes includethe rapid expansion of interregional exchangesand trade, and massive trade surpluses in pivotalcountries (countries that, by virtue of theircapacities and experience in promoting South-South cooperation, are positioned to play a ‘lead’ role in the promotion and application ofSouth-South cooperation) that result in newfinancing arrangements and opportunities topromote South-South cooperation. There iscontinuing demand from developing countriesfor support that would permit them to benefitfrom these opportunities.

In addition, UNDP has no clear partnershipstrategies to support or strengthen South-Southcooperation within the United Nations develop-ment system or among countries of the South.Case studies show that other United Nationsorganizations are actively involved in South-South cooperation, yet in many countries,coordination of United Nations system-wideefforts to prioritize South-South cooperation in national development agendas remains ad hocand inadequate.

The development context varies among thecountries of the South. Some countries havetaken a lead in South-South cooperation and donot require support from the United Nationssystem; others have requested UNDP support fortheir initiatives. Some countries have yet to fullyrecognize the potential of South-South coopera-tion and require encouragement to stimulatedemand. Clear strategies to partner with govern-

ments to support and promote the demand forSouth-South cooperation are not fully in place,especially in pivotal countries.

UNDP, with its global presence, has yet to adopta robust approach to supporting a two-way flowof knowledge and multi-dimensional experienceamong all the countries in the South.

Conclusion 3: UNDP is a responsive partner at thecountry level. However, its effectiveness in South-South cooperation is constrained by unevenrecognition, inadequate resources and incentives,and an inability to systematize learning.

Though many UNDP initiatives currentlyunderway have South-South elements, they arenot corporately recognized as such. There islimited shared understanding of the concept ofSouth-South cooperation across the organization,and inadequate recognition of the value added bySouth-South cooperation at the operational level.

UNDP has not provided adequate resources tomainstream South-South cooperation in itsprogramming. While UNDP provides theregular (core) resources for the Special Unit, theorganization has not been able to sustain thecommitment (1997) to allocate 0.5 percent of itsannual programme resources to the Special Unit(support is currently fixed at $4.5 million).

Much of what UNDP is doing on South-Southcooperation is the result of individual initiativesand leadership. There is a lack of clear incentivesand guidance to integrate South-South coopera-tion in global, regional and country programmes.

The accountability and reporting systems ofUNDP do not adequately reflect the priority ofsupport for South-South cooperation.

UNDP does not conduct systematic analysis ofthe information contained in its knowledgenetworks. Such analysis might help to distilmodalities of engagement in South-Southcooperation, with a view to mapping demandareas, identifying capacity needs and codifying

E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y x i

the wide experience of UNDP. Similarly, UNDPhas not built a body of evaluative evidence on itscontribution to South-South cooperation, whichwould have enabled the organization to learnfrom its own experience.

Conclusion 4: UNDP and the Special Unithave not fully leveraged their collectivestrengths and capacities.

The Special Unit has convening power andspecialized knowledge to facilitate interest andcatalyze demand among partner countries.UNDP has a networked global presence, amandate to coordinate at the country level and, ingeneral, close interaction with programmecountry partners. Yet the Special Unit and UNDPhave not fully leveraged each other’s strengths.

There are no clear collaborative arrangementsbetween the Special Unit and UNDP at differentoperational levels. The UNDP Strategic Plan,2008–2011, does not reflect the areas of collabo-ration spelled out in the Third CooperationFramework for South-South Cooperation.UNDP has not worked with the Special Unit tocodify relevant experience emerging from theUnit’s practice networks. In addition, the SpecialUnit has not leveraged the UNDP network ofcountry offices to identify areas of focus orcoordinate South-South cooperation efforts ofthe United Nations system at the country level.

B. RECOMMENDATIONS

The rapid evolution of South-South cooperationhas opened a window of opportunity for develop-ing countries to use such cooperation as a meanstowards achieving internationally agreeddevelopment goals, including the MDGs. TheUnited Nations development system has animportant partnership role. Within this partner-ship, UNDP must clearly define the contours ofits engagement with South-South cooperationand revamp its institutional arrangements,including its relationship with the Special Unit.

This evaluation’s recommendations address:the cooperation framework for South-South

cooperation and the role of the Special Unit;the responsibility, strategic approach and institutional arrangements of UNDP; and collab-orative arrangements between UNDP and theSpecial Unit. These recommendations areintended to be mutually reinforcing and shouldbe treated as a whole.

Recommendation 1: The Fourth CooperationFramework for South-South Cooperation(managed by the Special Unit) should be shapedaround three activity streams: knowledgesharing; policy development and advocacy;and catalyzing innovation. Initiatives in each of these streams should be time-bound andresults-oriented.

The evaluation found that the thrust and the keyelements of the Third Cooperation Frameworkfor South-South Cooperation are still relevant,and that the Special Unit had achieved most ofthe outputs. However, the full potential of resultshas not been attained, due to the Special Unit’slimited capacity and inadequate leveraging of thestrengths of the United Nations developmentsystem. Specific recommendations made in thisarea do not envisage a fundamental change in thecontent of the Third Cooperation Framework,but rather enable the Special Unit to engagemore closely with the United Nations system toincrease the effectiveness of country support.

Knowledge sharing for South-South experienceThe Special Unit should continue to serve as therepository of knowledge on South-South cooper-ation for the United Nations system and theinternational community. The Unit shouldsystematically engage with governments and allUnited Nations organizations to distil goodpractices, identify proven solutions and expertise,and codify experience in a user-friendly interac-tive system accessible by the internationaldevelopment community at large.

The Special Unit should conduct research andanalysis of key emerging trends in South-Southcooperation. This exercise should gaugeemerging needs by assessing the outcomes of the

E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Yx i i

deliberations of relevant intergovernmental fora,as well as by pooling and synthesizing the experi-ence of United Nations system organizations.

Policy development and advocacy for South-South cooperationThe Special Unit should continue its advocacyefforts through intergovernmental fora, regionalbodies and national-level stakeholders. TheSpecial Unit should document outcomes fromthese efforts to influence the future practice ofSouth-South cooperation.

The Special Unit should more effectively engagewith all United Nations development organiza-tions in order to mainstream South-Southcooperation as a modality for developmenteffectiveness. The Unit should establish amechanism or mechanisms for systematicengagement with partners to address sharedpriorities and action plans. These could includeupdating the policy and procedural guidelinesrelated to South-South cooperation and periodicconsultations within the United Nationsdevelopment system.

Catalyzing and innovating to meet emergingdemands of South-South cooperationThe Special Unit should:

n Identify appropriate priorities for action inemerging areas of South-South cooperationby mapping demand through consultationwith target countries and the United Nationssystem, supplemented by analysis;

n Develop a select portfolio of time-bound,results-oriented pilot initiatives to addresscritical issues in the areas identified, with theobjective of defining effective South-Southsolutions that can be scaled up and/orreplicated by countries with the support ofthe United Nations system as appropriate.This portfolio should be of a manageablesize, and should be flexible enough toaccommodate additional demands as theyemerge. The Special Unit should undertakeonly a limited number of pilot activities atany given time;

n Support countries in developing policyframeworks to enable them to addressopportunities and constraints in theexpansion of South-South cooperation inareas such as public-private partnerships andcivil society engagement; and

n Manage funds for South-South cooperationon behalf of countries of the South within anaccountable and clearly defined results-oriented framework.

The Fourth Cooperation Framework for South-South Cooperation and its components shouldbe built around clear outcomes that are linked tothe mandate of the Special Unit. The results chainshould logically link the outputs to outcomes.

Recommendation 2: In programming initiatives,the Special Unit should adopt strict criteria andleverage the capacities of UNDP and otherrelevant United Nations organizations toenhance the contribution of South-Southcooperation to development effectiveness.

The evaluation found that the Special Unit isneither sufficiently using criteria established byintergovernmental fora nor adequately leveragingthe global networked presence of UNDP and the specialized mandates of organizations of the United Nations development system. Therecommendations of this evaluation envisage thatthe Special Unit will continue using its conveningpower and specialized knowledge to initiate pilotactivities, and will expand its partnerships withrelevant United Nations organizations.

The initiatives under the Fourth CooperationFramework for South-South Cooperation shouldstrictly adhere to criteria including:

n Strong demand from member countries(Buenos Aires Plan of Action);

n Defined impact on a large number ofcountries (New Directions for TechnicalCooperation among Developing Countries,1995); and

n A clear results framework, with a resultschain linking outputs of initiatives to

E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y x i i i

outcomes sought by the cooperationframework (TCDC/13/3).

The Special Unit should partner with govern-ments and relevant United Nations agencies inits pilot initiatives from the outset, with a view tomutual learning, codification and integration ofthe pilot experience into the programming of therespective government or organization.

The Special Unit should have a clear exit strategyfor each pilot project. The government or partnerorganization should be prepared to scale up andreplicate successful activities, and to providefeedback on programme experience and results tothe knowledge base of the Special Unit.

Recommendation 3: UNDP should develop acorporate South-South cooperation strategythat: addresses emerging issues; draws on itsown experience; integrates all of its programmeframeworks; and is underpinned by resources,incentives and accountability.

UNDP has islands of success in South-Southcooperation; however, these have not beenintegrated into the corporate approach. As such,this evaluation recommends prioritizing South-South cooperation in programming and takingsteps towards institutionalizing South-Southcooperation approaches, including:

n At the corporate level, UNDP shouldrespond to the dynamic changes taking placein South-South cooperation, as well as toemerging priorities. In so doing, UNDPmust consistently and fully reflect the humandevelopment mandate and the rights-basedapproach to development. UNDP shouldidentify key partners and modalities ofpartnership in diverse contexts, includingpivotal countries.

n UNDP should identify a clear set of deliver-ables on South-South cooperation for whichit assumes responsibility. This should be donethrough an internal discussion with theSpecial Unit, as well as in consultation withpartner countries and other United Nationssystem bodies.

n UNDP should develop a results frameworkfor South-South cooperation initiatives in its strategic plan, with clear benchmarks and indicators to assess its contribution toSouth-South cooperation. To support thisassessment, an effective monitoring andevaluation mechanism must be put in placeto track performance of all related program-ming activity.

n UNDP should identify South-South cooper-ation priorities based on: its own program-ming experience at the country, regional andglobal levels; findings from the analysis of theSpecial Unit; and systematic consultationswith programme countries. In particular,UNDP should mine the experience gained insupporting conflict prevention and recovery,disaster preparedness, climate change, tradeand intra-South development cooperation.

n UNDP should: develop an approach tosystematically link South-South considerationsin practice areas and programming at thecountry, regional and global levels; proactivelyrequire all practice areas to have South-South concerns as an element; develop clearguidance material in the Results ManagementGuide based on TCDC/13/3; and ensuresupport to South-South cooperation at alllevels of UNDP programming.

n UNDP should reflect the priority placed onSouth-South cooperation in allocating andtracking of resources, developing perform-ance incentives, and implementing accounta-bility and reporting systems.

Recommendation 4: UNDP and the SpecialUnit for South-South Cooperation shoulddefine clear collaboration arrangements.

This evaluation found that collaboration betweenUNDP and the Special Unit is not adequatelyinstitutionalized. UNDP needs to recognise thatthe Special Unit’s mandate goes beyond the workof UNDP, and that the cooperation frameworkshould support the full mandate. In this area, theevaluation’s recommendations address roles and

E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Yx i v

responsibilities, resource allocation and jointefforts at codification and coordination.

n The Director of the Special Unit should be amember of the Operations Group. Clearcollaborative arrangements between theSpecial Unit and the regional and practicebureaux of UNDP need to be established.Periodic reporting and discussion of theimplementation of the Fourth CooperationFramework for South-South Cooperation, aswell as the results of collaboration withUNDP regional bureaux, corporate units andcountry offices, should take place in theOperations Group.

n UNDP should revisit its 1997 commitmentto provide 0.5 percent of its total program-

ming resources to South-South cooperationand ensure that predictable and adequateresources are made available to both UNDPand the Special Unit, in order to fulfil theSouth-South cooperation mandate.

n UNDP should provide the Special Unit witha platform on which to engage with UnitedNations Country Teams with regard toSouth-South cooperation at the country level.

n UNDP and the Special Unit should worktogether to codify existing experience relatedto South-South cooperation by analysing trends,capacity needs and demands. This informa-tion should be made accessible to partners.

C H A P T E R 1 . I N T R O D U C T I O N 1

1.1 RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

South-South cooperation has been a priority forUNDP since the early 1970s. Requested by theUNDP Executive Board,1 this evaluation is partof the UNDP Evaluation Office agenda, approvedby the Board in June 2006. This evaluationsupports the UNDP Administrator’s substantiveaccountability to the Executive Board. Findingswill provide substantive inputs to the FourthCooperation Framework for South-SouthCooperation (2008–2010), to be presented to theBoard in January 2008,2 and to the implementa-tion of the UNDP Strategic Plan 2008–2011.3

The objective of the evaluation was to assess theUNDP contribution to South-South cooperationover the past decade and the performance of theThird Cooperation Framework for South-SouthCooperation, managed by the Special Unit forSouth-South Cooperation (referred to in thisdocument as ‘the Special Unit’). The evaluationaimed to provide major lessons learned throughassessing what worked and why, as well as to offer

key recommendations for strengthening theeffectiveness of future programming efforts in South-South cooperation.4 The intendedaudience for this evaluation report includes theUNDP Executive Board, senior management,the Special Unit, country offices, nationalgovernments and the international developmentcommunity at large.

South-South cooperation is a process wherebytwo or more developing countries pursue theirindividual or collective development throughcooperative exchange of knowledge, skills,resources and technical expertise. Ideally,developing countries themselves should initiate,organize and manage South-South cooperationactivities, with their respective governmentsplaying a lead role, and with the support andinvolvement of public and private institutions,non-governmental organizations and individuals.South-South cooperation is multidimensional inscope and can include all sectors and kinds ofcooperation activities among developing countries,

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

“The thrust of international technical cooperation should be increasingly directed towards enhancing the capacitiesof developing countries to help themselves and each other.The use of the resources of the UNDP and other multilateraland bilateral agencies should reflect this change in emphasis.” – The Buenos Aires Plan of Action, 1978

“Building bridges across the South…has always been our objective since the inception of the South-Southcooperation…. Our aim today must be to further strengthen and widen those bridges to reach our developmentobjectives and influence the processes that shape the new international economic relations of the 21st century.” –Marrakech Declaration on South-South Cooperation, 2003

1 Statement to the UNDP Executive Board by Zephirin Diabre, Associate Administrator, 17 June 2004, Item 5: CountryProgrammes and Related Matters, Geneva.

2 UNDP Evaluation Office, Terms of Reference: Evaluation of UNDP’s Contribution to South-South Cooperation.Evaluation Office. March 2007.

3 Statement to the UNDP/UNFPA Executive Board by Ad Melkert, Associate Administrator, 19 June 2007, Item 4:UNDP Strategic Plan, 2008–2011, New York.

4 UNDP Evaluation Office, Terms of Reference: Evaluation of UNDP’s Contribution to South-South Cooperation.Evaluation Office. March 2007.

C H A P T E R 1 . I N T R O D U C T I O N2

whether bilateral or multilateral, subregional,regional or interregional. The challenge is tomarshal innovative approaches, methods andtechniques particularly appropriate to local needs.5

The 2003 Marrakech Declaration6 states that theobjective of South-South cooperation is to buildbridges across the South, and to “strengthen andwiden those bridges to reach our developmentobjectives and to be able to integrate into theworld economy and influence the processes thatshape the new international economic relationsof the 21st century…. South-South cooperationis not an option but an imperative to complementNorth-South cooperation in order to contributeto the achievement of the internationally agreeddevelopment goals, including the MillenniumDevelopment Goals…. No single country, eventhe most advanced among developing countries,has much hope of reaching individually expectedgrowth and development and influencing theoutcomes of the international agenda.” However,the Declaration says that collectively, the countriesof the South can play a more effective role inachieving development objectives and shapinginternational relations.

The Buenos Aires Plan of Action (BAPA)7

provides guidelines for South-South cooperation.The thrust of South-South cooperation shouldbe directed towards enhancing the capacities ofdeveloping countries, in order to help themselvesand each other to enhance national and collectiveself-reliance. The measures must favour econom-ically or geographically disadvantaged developingcountries and aim to maximize the use of thesecountries’ capacities.

Adopted by the High-Level Committee for theReview of South-South Cooperation (HLC) andendorsed by the General Assembly in 1995, theNew Directions for Technical Cooperation amongDeveloping Countries report8 recognized thechanging development context. The reporthighlighted increasing globalization, challengesresulting from liberalization, and the need tointegrate technical and economic cooperationamong developing countries. In addition, thereport emphasized that South-South cooperationshould focus on strategic initiatives that are likelyto have a major impact on a large number ofdeveloping countries. Themes identified forstrategic intervention included: trade and invest-ment, debt, environment, poverty alleviation,production and employment, macro-economicpolicy coordination and aid management. TheRevised Guidelines for the Review of Policies andProcedures Concerning Technical Cooperationamong Developing Countries (TCDC/13/3)9

reiterated these areas and added education,health, transfer of technology and rural develop-ment to this list of shared priorities.

United Nations declarations and the spirit of BAPAassign primary responsibility to the developingcountries for organizing, managing and financingSouth-South cooperation, in order to meet theirdevelopment needs and attain self-reliance. Thefunction of the United Nations system is largelysupportive, and all its organizations should play aprominent role as catalysts and promoters.10

Over the past 30 years, there has been a remarkableupsurge in South-South cooperation. Sustainedeconomic growth since the late 1980s has led to

5 High-Level Committee on the Review of Technical Cooperation among Developing Countries, 2003. Revised Guidelinesfor the Review of Policies and Procedures Concerning Technical cooperation Among Developing Countries. TCDC 13/3, 13thSession, 20–27 May 2003. New York.

6 The High-level Conference on South-South Cooperation, held in Marrakech, Morocco, 16–19 December 2003, adoptedthe Marrakech Declaration. http://www.un.org/special-rep/ohrlls/ohrlls/SouthSouth%20Marrakech_Declaration.htm

7 United Nations Conference on Technical Cooperation among Developing Countries, 30 August – 12 September, 1978,Buenos Aires, Argentina.

8 See http://tcdc.undp.org/knowledge_base/new_direction1.html.9 High-Level Committee on the Review of Technical Cooperation among Developing Countries, 2003. Revised Guidelines

for the Review of Policies and Procedures Concerning Technical cooperation Among Developing Countries. TCDC 13/3, 13thSession, 20–27 May 2003. New York.

10 Ibid.


an increasing number of developing countriesbecoming regional centres of economic dynamism.Many countries have become increasinglyspecialized in their manufacturing, trading andinvestment activities. This has dramaticallyreshaped the global economic landscape, creatingnew dynamics in trade, investment and develop-ment assistance flows both from and withineconomies in the South.11 In short, an increasingnumber of countries have become both benefici-aries and benefactors in South-South exchanges.

Growing faster than trade between developingand developed countries, South-South trademade up 26 percent of developing countries’exports in 2004. In addition, many countries ofthe South have accumulated large financialsurpluses. According to 2006 data, more than 50 percent of all foreign direct investmentinflows to Botswana, the Democratic Republic ofthe Congo, Lesotho, Malawi and Swazilandcome from South African investors.12 During the1990s, South-South foreign direct investmentflows grew faster than North-South flows. LargeSouthern transnational corporations grew fromjust 19 in 1990 to 58 by 2005.

Many cities, countries and regions in the Southare emerging as new leaders in technology,research and development. Southern innovationsare making their mark, for instance, on issuessuch as access to medicines and health, cleandrinking water and sanitation, food and basiceducation. Low-income countries have also madegreat strides in a number of other areas, such asdisaster prevention and relief, health, educationand microfinance.

Regional and subregional economic communitiesare playing a valuable role in development inAfrica and other regions. Leading examples and

drivers of this regional integration movementinclude: the Southern African DevelopmentCommunity, the Common Market for Easternand Southern Africa, the Economic Communityof West African States, the Economic Communityfor Central African States, the Community ofthe Sahel Saharan States, the Association ofSoutheast Asian Nations, the Gulf CooperationCouncil, the Andean Community, the SouthernCone Common Market and the CaribbeanCommunity. Most technical cooperation amongdeveloping countries occurs within the frameworkof these regional and subregional agreements,which provide “the most meaningful approachand effective conduit for the South to face thechallenges of globalisation.”13

‘Triangular cooperation’14 by developed countrieshas provided supplementary resources for South-South cooperation. It is important to note,however, that South-South cooperation supportby Northern countries does not fulfil theirprevious commitments to increase officialdevelopment assistance. As countries accumulatetrade surpluses and foreign reserves, new fundsand modes of development financing, such as thesovereign funds, continue to appear. An increas-ing number of developing countries are providingtriangular support.

Despite growing solidarity among Southerncountries, emerging trends in South-Southcooperation have given rise to some concerns. Forexample, the economic benefits of foreign directinvestment tend to be concentrated in a fewcountries. While the benefits of South-Southcooperation as a whole are more widespread, theyare not flowing adequately to the poorer andmore disadvantaged nations of the South, whichinclude the least-developed countries, landlocked

11 United Nations, 2007. The State of South-South Cooperation. Report by the Secretary General. A62/150.12 Statement of Dr. Z.S.T. Skweyiya, South African Minister of Social Development to the United Nations General

Assembly Informal Thematic Debate on Development, NY, 27 November 2006.13 Statement of Ambassador Mohamed Bennouna, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Morocco to the UN and

Chair of the Group of 77 in 2003, Journal of the Group of 77, Volume 16, No. 3, December 2003.14 Triangular cooperation is South-South cooperation among two or more developing countries supported financially by

bilateral donors or international organizations.


developing countries and Small Island DevelopingStates. Not enough progress is being made,for example, in mobilizing Southern support for reducing widespread human poverty anddeprivation in poor countries, or in addressingpockets of poverty and discrimination in thebetter-off developing countries.

Much of the growth in South-South cooperationis happening without the participation of theUnited Nations system, providing a welcomeindication of effective leadership and capacity inthe South. Nevertheless, the changing interna-tional environment has increased demands on theUnited Nations system. While mutual coopera-tion between developing countries is growing,there is concurrent demand for multilateralorganizations to support efforts to guide the flowof resources, in order to ensure that everyonebenefits from South-South cooperation. Givenits universal presence and neutrality, membercountries expect the United Nations system to mainstream South-South cooperation as across-cutting theme in its work.15 In addition,members expect the UN system to respondrobustly to reports of slow progress in manydeveloping countries towards the MillenniumDevelopment Goals (MDGs) and other interna-tionally agreed upon development goals.

UNDP is expected to help build capacities incountries of the South in order to support themin achieving their individual development goalsand the MDGs. South-South cooperation isexpected to be an integral part of UNDP work,given the stated UNDP positioning as aknowledge-based organization, its role in theexchange of development experience through itsglobal network of country offices, and its supportto the Special Unit.

Against such backdrop, this evaluation assessedthe contributions to South-South cooperation byUNDP and the Special Unit it hosts.

1.2 SCOPE, APPROACH ANDMETHODOLOGY

This evaluation addressed UNDP organizationalstrategy and initiatives to promote South-Southcooperation at the global, regional and countrylevels. In doing so, it assessed the performance ofthe Special Unit against the Third CooperationFramework for South-South Cooperation, aswell as the nature and extent of interactionbetween the Special Unit and UNDP. Theevaluation did not cover the full mandate of theSpecial Unit, which is detailed subsequently.

The evaluated period of 1996 to the present wassuggested by the New Directions for TechnicalCooperation among Developing Countries report.Endorsed by the General Assembly and HLC in1995, its implementation by the Special Unit forSouth-South cooperation began in 1996.

To assess UNDP contribution to South-Southcooperation, the evaluation examined ongoing andemerging trends in global South-South cooperation,the role of the UN system and the main priorities,decisions and recommendations affecting theUN mandate for South-South cooperation.

Inquiries were designed to address the key issues, including:

n The nature and extent of support provided bythe Special Unit and UNDP in promotingand expanding South-South cooperation;

n The ability of UNDP and the Special Unit tolearn from experience in South-Southcooperation, in order to strengthen andinstitutionalize support to South-Southcooperation across all practice areas;

n The appropriateness, relevance, effectivenessand sustainability of UNDP efforts to meetthe varied and evolving demand to strengthenand expand South-South cooperation; and

n UNDP preparedness to address emergingdemands in South-South cooperation.

15 Such views were expressed by several member-countries during the Meeting of the High Level Committee on South-South cooperation, 29 May 2007, United Nations, New York.


The evaluation gathered evidence through eightcountry case studies. The process included: a deskstudy; interviews with staff in Geneva and NewYork; an electronic survey of United NationsCountry Team (UNCT) in programme countries;and a desk study of relevant secondary evidence.

1.2.1 SELECTION OF CASE STUDY COUNTRIES

Extensive consideration was given to the selectionof case study countries. Given wide variations inthe practice of South-South cooperation andlimited time and resources, random selection wasnot feasible. Adopting a purposive approach,countries were selected to reflect:

n varied experience in South-South cooperation;

n regional distribution; and

n geographical constraints, including Small IslandDeveloping States and landlocked countries.

Based on such criteria, the evaluation selectedBarbados, Brazil, China, Guatemala, Mali, SouthAfrica and Thailand. An in-depth desk study wasalso conducted in India, and Brazil was chosen asthe pilot study.

The evaluation assessed the contribution toSouth-South cooperation of the Special Unit andUNDP by examining:

n Relevance: Are efforts addressing the keypriority areas identified by external claimholdersat the national, regional and global level?

n Appropriateness: Are efforts creatingsynergies with other ongoing South-Southcooperation efforts? Are efforts the mostsuitable for the context?

n Effectiveness: Are efforts making a difference?If so, what is their influence?

n Sustainability: Are UNDP-funded South-South cooperation initiatives sustainable?(This aspect was considered within theconstraints of available data.)

Over 248 stakeholders were consulted in Geneva,New York and case study countries. In each casestudy country, stakeholders included the UNCT,

government officials, bilateral donors, membersof civil societies and the UNDP country officestaff. Other stakeholders included UNDPheadquarters units, UN agencies in New Yorkand Geneva and permanent missions of UNMember States.

The electronic survey was designed to gatheressential information about South-South cooper-ation activities and perceptions. The survey wasaddressed to UN Resident Coordinators, who in turn forwarded it to other country teammembers. Responses were received from 149members of UNCT from 51 countries, includingall concerned Resident Representatives.

Secondary evidence was gathered from previousUNDP evaluations of the Second GlobalCooperation Framework and four regional frame-works, including Africa, Arab States, Asia and thePacific, and Latin America and the Caribbean.

There were some methodological constraints:

n There is a serious shortage of documentationon South-South cooperation initiatives andon assessments of their outcomes;

n Given the many partners and factors involved,it is difficult to assess UNDP contribution todevelopment outcomes. It is even moredifficult to make a definitive identification ofvalue added by South-South cooperation todevelopment outcomes, and more difficultstill to identify value added to South-Southcooperation by UNDP;

n Initiatives of UNDP and the Special Unit forSouth-South Cooperation do not havetracking or monitoring systems in place toprovide reliable data. Moreover, costs associ-ated with South-South cooperation initia-tives are not recorded separately, ruling outthe possibility of assessing efficiency;

n There are also limitations in relying on inter-views as a source of evaluative information.Given staff turnover, it was not alwayspossible to reach key stakeholders, making itdifficult to assess past experiences. In many


instances, the evaluation team had to relyentirely on UNDP country offices to identifystakeholders and set up interviews. This limitedthe validity of the information collected; and

n Resources and time available imposed further constraints.

Chapter 2 presents the roles and responsibilitiesof UNDP units in promoting South-Southcooperation, as well as the South-South cooper-ation initiatives undertaken by the Special Unitand UNDP. Chapter 3 outlines the evaluationfindings and lessons learned. Chapter 4 presentsthe recommendations of the evaluation.

C H A P T E R 2 . U N D P A N D S O U T H - S O U T H C O O P E R A T I O N S I N C E 1 9 9 6 7

2.1 HISTORY

In response to mounting pressure for a neweconomic order during the 1970s, and in supportof the principle of collective self-reliance amongdeveloping countries, United Nations GeneralAssembly resolution 3251 of 4 December 1974established a Special Unit for Technical Cooperationamong Developing Countries (TCDC) withinUNDP. In 1978, following a conference onTCDC, the Buenos Aires Plan of Actionproposed a set of guiding principles and a plan ofaction for promoting and implementing TCDC,with specific recommendations for the UnitedNations development system.

The High-Level Committee on the Review ofTCDC was established in 1980 as the highestpolicy and oversight body under and reporting tothe General Assembly. In addition to its respon-sibilities as the global and UN system-wideadvocate, catalyst and resource mobilizer ofSouth-South cooperation, the Special Unit forSouth-South Cooperation16 was made thesubstantive secretariat for the HLC.

The 1995 report, New Directions for TechnicalCooperation among Developing Countries, includeda strategic orientation for TCDC. It focused onhigh priority areas, identifying 22 developingnations as ‘pivotal countries’ (now designated‘prime movers’) for the promotion of regional andinterregional TCDC, and stressing the need for

operational integration between technical andeconomic cooperation among developing countries.The report defined pivotal countries as “developingcountries that, by virtue of their capacities andexperience in promoting South-South cooperation,are positioned to play a ‘lead’ role in the promotionand application of TCDC, by sharing theircapacities and experience with other developingcountries in their region or in other regions.”17

The Marrakech Framework, adopted at the 2003 High-Level Conference on South-SouthCooperation, invited the Special Unit to workwith developing countries in order to formulateand help implement programmes—and invitedUNDP to mainstream a South-South dimensionis in all its activities. The Framework also calledfor the strengthening of the Special Unit as afocal point for South-South cooperation withinthe UN system.

The New Directions for Technical Cooperationamong Developing Countries report, MarrakechFramework, and subsequent General Assemblyresolutions and HLC decisions point to emergingchallenges and opportunities in South-Southcooperation, as well as to the need for the UNsystem to address them.

2.2 MANDATE

Following the mandate emanating from BAPARecommendation 34, UN General Assembly

Chapter 2

UNDP AND SOUTH-SOUTHCOOPERATION SINCE 1996

16 The name was changed from Special Unit for TCDC to Special Unit for South-South Cooperation in 2003 by the HLC(HLC/TCDC 13/2).

17 See http://tcdc1.undp.org/faqDetail.aspx?faq_id=6. The 22 pivotal countries are Brazil, Chile, China, Colombia, CostaRica, Cuba, Egypt, Ghana, India, Indonesia, Malta, Malaysia, Mauritius, Mexico, Nigeria, Peru, the Republic of Korea,Senegal, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia and Turkey.

C H A P T E R 2 . U N D P A N D S O U T H - S O U T H C O O P E R A T I O N S I N C E 1 9 9 68

resolution 33/144 of 19 December 1978(subsequently elaborated by the HLC and theUNDP Executive Board), charged the SpecialUnit with:

n Coordinating the activities of UNDP in thefield of South-South cooperation with thoseof the participating and executing agencies,as well as with regional commissions;

n Preparing modifications in the policies, rulesand procedures of UNDP, in accordance withrelevant decisions of the General Assemblyand the UNDP Executive Board, in order toimprove capacity to implement South-Southcooperation initiatives and assist, at theirrequest, other UN organs and organizationsin this regard;

n Assisting governments to undertake South-South cooperation programmes and activi-ties, in order to achieve the objectives ofSouth-South cooperation;

n Developing new ideas, concepts and approachesfor promoting technical cooperation amongdeveloping countries, and for this purpose,arranging for the necessary studies andanalyses to be undertaken and submitted to the governments for consideration andapproval in the HLC;

n Expanding, strengthening and promotingthe efficient use of the Web of Informationfor Development (WIDE, previously knownas INRES or information referral system)and establishing appropriate linkages withnational and regional information systemsand focal points;

n Generating financial and other support forSouth-South cooperation activities; and

n Servicing the HLC by preparing progressreports on the implementation of the BuenosAires Plan of Action for HLC consideration.

This mandate of the Special Unit involves twosets of functions:

1. As the secretariat of the HLC; and

2. As the UNDP and UN system-wideorganizer, mobilizer and coordinator ofSouth-South cooperation.

The governing body of the Special Unit is theHLC, comprised of representatives of allcountries participating in UNDP. The SpecialUnit has reported to HLC biennially since 1980.The Unit also reports to the Executive Board of UNDP and the General Assembly annually,preparing all substantive reports18 and providingsupport to the office of the chairman of theGroup of 77 and China. In addition, the SpecialUnit coordinates the system of national South-South focal points and organizes the annual UnitedNations Day for South-South Cooperation (19 December).

Regular resources for the Special Unit areprovided by UNDP (see discussion in section2.3.1.1, Special Unit Resources and Capacity),and the Unit mobilizes additional resources toconduct its activities. It also manages fundsallocated to carry out South-South cooperation,including the United Nations Fund for South-South Cooperation, the Perez-Guerrero TrustFund of the Group of 77 and China, and theIndia-Brazil-South Africa Facility for Povertyand Hunger Alleviation.

BAPA and subsequent UN resolutions require thatSouth-South cooperation focuses particularly on theneeds of economically or geographically disadvan-taged developing countries (Recommendation 28of BAPA). These include, for example, the leastdeveloped countries, landlocked developingcountries, Small Island Developing States and theentire region of Sub-Saharan Africa. Recent workhas stressed private-sector development and business

18 These include the report of the Secretary-General on the State of South-South Cooperation on 19 December of each year, as well as the report of the UNDP Administrator on the implementation of the South-South CooperationFramework every three years.


collaboration for development. Further, the NewDirections report emphasized the importance ofeconomic cooperation in South-South coopera-tion and proposed that the Special Unit focus onstrategic initiatives likely to have a major impacton a large number of target countries.

General Assembly resolution 60/212 (2005)19

invited the HLC and the UNDP ExecutiveBoard to consider measures to further strengthenthe Special Unit within UNDP. Positioning theUnit as a separate entity and a focal point forSouth-South cooperation in the UN system was intended to enable it to carry out its fullresponsibilities, in particular through mobiliza-tion of resources for the advancement of South-South cooperation.

The UNDP Executive Board decision presentedin E/2004/35 (2004) stated that South-Southcooperation was to be considered a driver ofdevelopment effectiveness and was to be incorpo-rated in the multi-year funding framework.20

More recently, the Executive Board, in its decision2007/32 (2007),21 reiterated that UNDP shouldpromote South-South cooperation by steppingup efforts to seek South-South solutions in all itsfocus areas as a way to enhance exchange of best practices and support among developingcountries, regardless of their levels of develop-ment. It also required the UNDP Administrator,in consultation with the Executive Board, toestablish measurable targets for the Special Unitfor South-South Cooperation. Finally, thedecision emphasized that UNDP should take ahuman development-based approach to itsSouth-South cooperation programming.

2.3 PROGRAMMATIC ACTIVITIES

2.3.1 SPECIAL UNIT FOR SOUTH-SOUTH COOPERATION

Since 1997, three cooperation frameworksapproved by the UNDP Executive Board haveprovided the framework for the work of theSpecial Unit. The Unit reported that the Third Cooperation Framework was prepared inconsultation with UNDP units and countryoffices, organizations of the UN system, memberstates, development partners and businessexecutives. To the extent possible, the frameworkincorporated the views expressed by members ofthe UNDP Executive Board.22 Progress onimplementation of the framework is presented tothe Executive Board annually and reported to theHLC biennially.

The First Cooperation Framework for TCDC(1997–1999) was based primarily on the analysisand recommendations contained in the 1995report, New Directions for Technical Cooperationamong Developing Countries. The programmefocused on:

n Support for sustainable human developmentthrough TCDC, covering poverty eradication;environment; production and employment;and trade, investment and macroeconomicmanagement; and

n The promotion of TCDC, including policyformulation and coordination; capacityenhancement for the management of TCDC;and information and support services.

The Second Cooperation Framework forTechnical Cooperation (2001–2003) had twostrategic focuses:

19 Resolution adopted by the General Assembly during its 60th session (December 2005) on South-South cooperation:www.un.org/Depts/dhl/resguide/r60.htm.

20 United Nations Economic and Social Council, 2004. Executive Board of the UNDP/UNFPA, Report of the ExecutiveBoard on its work during 2004, ECOSOC Official Records, Supplement #15, E/2004/35, September 2004.

21 www.ppccc.com/execbrd/word/SSC15L5.doc, 5 October, 2007.22 Third Cooperation Framework for South-South Cooperation (2005–2007), First Regular Session, 20–28 January 2005,

New York.


1. Mobilizing global support for South-Southcooperation; and

2. Acting as a catalyst for the development ofinnovative models of South-South technicalcooperation for partnering, resourcemobilization and mainstreaming.

The Third Cooperation Framework for South-South Cooperation (2005–2007) accordinglyidentified three policy and operational supportplatforms as the main building blocks of South-South cooperation. These include:

n Policy dialogue and promotion: A platformto support policy dialogue and follow-up tomajor intergovernmental conferences, withparticular emphasis on mainstreamingSouth-South cooperation as a driver ofdevelopment effectiveness;

n Fostering public-private partnerships: Aplatform to help create an enabling environmentand public-private partnership mechanisms forsustained intra-South business collaborationand technology exchanges; and

n Southern development knowledge exchange:A platform to support a more robust informa-tion system for managing and sharing develop-ment knowledge throughout the South.

Special Unit support to HLC, Group of 77 andChina, as well as resource mobilization, is listedunder Platform 1. Table 2.1 summarizes thenumber of projects and resource distribution

among the three platforms. It should be notedthat 11 of the 29 projects under the thirdplatform have budgets of under $200,000 for thethree-year period.

The strategy for implementing the ThirdCooperation Framework involves six elements:

1. Establish three flagship programmes toaccelerate South-South cooperation;

2. Assist countries to develop policies and mobilizeglobal support for South-South cooperation;

3. Strengthen collaboration with other UNDPbureaux and units, country offices, andregional centres;

4. Strengthen partnerships with governments,civil society and the private sector, as well aswith the UN development system to generatemore impact;

5. Establish intraregional and interregionalmechanisms to ensure the smooth implemen-tation of the South-South programme; and

6. Remodel and expand the capacity of WIDEto provide an online venue enabling partnersand other users to interact and exchangeknowledge and information.23

Three major programmes, each representing arespective operational platform, have beeninitiated. The Special Unit is working towardsthe creation of a global South developmentforum to bring together governments, private

Number of Projects Total Resources (US$ Millions)

Platform 1 14 14.4

Platform 2 9 12.8

Platform 3 29 15.8

Table 2.1. Distribution of Special Unit Projects under the Third Cooperation Framework

23 Third Cooperation Framework for South-South Cooperation, 2005–2007; presented to the Executive Board, FirstRegular Session, January 2005, DP/CF/SSC/3/Rev.1/.

Source: Special Unit for South-South Cooperation, UNDP

C H A P T E R 2 . U N D P A N D S O U T H - S O U T H C O O P E R A T I O N S I N C E 1 9 9 6 1 1

sectors and civil societies of developing countriesworking on South-South cooperation. Topromote public-private partnerships, SpecialUnit launched Technonet Africa in 2004. Theflagship programme for the third platform is theupgrade of the WIDE network, a medium forknowledge sharing and exchange of experience.

To assist intergovernmental bodies in developingpolicies on South-South cooperation, the SpecialUnit has:

n Monitored progress on the implementationof the Buenos Aires Plan of Action on TCDCand the New Directions strategy for TCDC;

n Conducted related research and preparedreports, submitted biennially to the High-Level Committee for South-SouthCooperation; and

n Published the development journalCooperation South (produced through 2005)and other publications including SharingInnovative Experiences.

To assist countries in developing policies andmobilizing global support for South-Southcooperation, the Special Unit collaborated withcountry offices in order to provide advisoryservices to countries such as Tunisia and Egypt.The Unit also conducted needs assessmentstudies in 15 countries of the EconomicCommunity of West African States, fivemembers of the East African Community and 16members of the Caribbean Community tostrengthen South-South focal point networks inthe three subregions.

To advance policy dialogue, the Special Unitfocused on the issue of remittances. It co-sponsored a ministerial conference on thedevelopment impact of remittances in least-developed countries to create a supportiveenvironment for safe and cost-effectivemechanisms for transfer of remittances. TheSpecial Unit, with the Bureau for DevelopmentPolicy (BDP) and the Rockefeller Foundation,

organized the first UNDP roundtable onremittances in 2006 as an input to the high-leveldialogue on migration and remittances held inSeptember 2006 in New York.

To improve collaboration with other UNDPbureaux, units, country offices and regionalcentres, the Special Unit has: posted two advisorsin the UNDP Regional Centres in Bangkok andJohannesburg; jointly held roundtables onremittances; jointly with UNDP Brazil, initiateda creative economy and technology transferprogramme in Brazil; and consulted with relevantbureaux to identify appropriate partners forregional initiatives. The UN Day for South-South Cooperation on 19 December was anopportunity for networking with UNDP andother agencies in the UN system.

To strengthen partnerships with governments,civil society and the private sector, as well as withorganizations of the UN system, the Special Unitdeveloped the South-South Global Asset andTechnology Exchange System, the purpose ofwhich is to transfer technology among develop-ing countries and mobilize resources for under-funded development and infrastructure projects.In the longer term, the Special Unit will beworking towards a Global South DevelopmentForum. The Creative Economy Report 2007 willbe produced in collaboration with the UnitedNations Conference on Trade and Development,the United Nations Educational, Scientific andCultural Organization and the WorldIntellectual Property Organization.

To establish intra- and interregional mechanismsto implement the South-South programme, theSpecial Unit used the Africa Rice Initiative tolink West African countries to information onnew rice varieties. The Unit also oversaw theglobal facility for disaster risk management at thecommunity level, implemented by the RegionalCentre in Bangkok.

A major initiative under the second platform ofthe Third Cooperation Framework is Technonet


Africa,24 which promotes small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in partnership withTechnonet Asia, an Asian network with a 30-year history in promoting SMEs. Launched in2004 in Johannesburg, South Africa, the projecthas an allocation of $4.3 million, or over 14percent of the Special Unit’s total resources. It isactive in seven pilot countries, includingCameroon, Ghana, Mozambique, Nigeria, SouthAfrica, Tanzania and Uganda.

Thus far, outputs have included: inputs to policyframeworks to establish SME development banks;studies on the SME environment in Africa; settingup networks of participants; a symposium on SMEfinancing; a study tour and training session forAfrican policymakers and business leaders toMalaysia, Thailand and Vietnam on how to startand manage an SME bank; and training of trainerson entrepreneurship development, in partnershipwith Japan International Cooperation Agency.

Among concrete outputs are: a clearer under-standing of the SME environment amongpolicy-makers in Africa; training of trainers inSouth Africa; and action by governments in pilotcountries on policy and institutional reforms andfinancial discipline.

The Special Unit launched a new version of theWIDE network in December 2006. Thisbenefited from knowledge sharing and exchangesof experience at a WIDE roster users’ workshop

sponsored by UNDP. In addition, trainingsessions on the use of WIDE were held in theRegional Centres of Bangkok and Sri Lanka.Partners built 40 rosters using the updated roster platform.

2.3.1.1 Special Unit Resources and Capacity Table 2.2 shows the Special Unit fundingallocated from UNDP regular (core) resources,as well as resources mobilized by the Special Unitunder the three cooperation frameworks. Annualresources available to the Special Unit havedeclined in real terms over the past decade,though the nominal value has not changed.Regular (core) resources available to the SpecialUnit have also declined. As UNDP resourcesdeclined in the late 1990s and early 2000s, therewas a policy shift regarding the allocation of 0.5 percent of UNDP programme resources tothe Special Unit. To ensure predictability, theExecutive Board fixed support for the Special Unitat $3.5 million for the programming period 2003–2007 (Decision 2002/1), raised to $4.5 million underthe current UNDP Strategic Plan (2008–2011).

Managing funds and cost-sharing provides nearlyhalf of the funds available to UNDP ($13.4 millionfor the cycle), of which contributions fromdeveloping countries to tsunami relief efforts are$3.5 million.

The Special Unit budget is comparable to that of the Human Development Report Office

24 Report on the Implementation of the Third Cooperation Framework for South-South Cooperation (2005–2007).Annual Session 2007, 11–22 June 2007, New York, DP/2007/30.

1997–2001a 2001–2003b 2004–2007c

Core Non-Core Core Non-Core Core Non-Core

Total 15.0 10.0 7.4 9.7 14.6 13.3

Per annum 5.0 3.3 3.7 4.9 4.9 4.4

Table 2.2. Resources for the Special Unit (US$ Millions)

Sources: a. UNDP, 1999. 20 Years of South-South Partnership Building, An Assessment of Technical Cooperation among Developing Countries(TCDC), 1978–1998. Special Unit for TCDC. July; b. Rahman, S., 2003. Evaluation Report on the Second Cooperation Framework of TCDC(2001–2003). Abacus International Management, LLC. 10 March; c. UNDP, 2007 Report on the Implementation of the Third CooperationFramework for South-South Cooperation (2005–2007). Report of the Administrator to the UNDP Executive Board, Annual Session, 2007.


($8.6 million in 2006), which is responsible forproducing an annual Human DevelopmentReport and providing technical support tocountries for production of National HumanDevelopment Reports.

Since 1998, the total number of Special Unit staffhas remained unchanged (see Table 2.4).

2.3.2 UNDP

To support and promote South-South coopera-tion, UNDP has made commitments including:

n In the 1992–1996 programme cycle, UNDPidentified TCDC as one of its six priorityprogrammes and allocated special programmeresources to Special Unit activities;

n In response to the HLC request made during its 10th session, UNDP allocated 0.5 percent of overall programme resources(estimated at $15 million) to the Special Unitunder the 1997–1999 cooperation frame-work (see the section on UNDP Resourcesand Capacity);

Sources: Sources: 1998 data from South-South Partnership Building, An Assessment of Technical Cooperation among Developing Countries(TCDC), 1978–1998 (UNDP Special Unit for TCDC, July 1999); 2007 data from the Special UnitNotes: a. Director, Deputy Director, Senior Advisor on Resource Mobilization; b. Additional L6 (Executive Secretary to the Office of theChairman of the G-77); c. Combined professional and general service category

Source Amount (thousands US$)

Regular 14,586

United Nations Fund for South-South Cooperation - China 1,700

Developing-country contributions for tsunami recovery and reconstruction 3,510

India-Brazil-South Africa Facility for Poverty and Hunger Alleviation 3,056

Perez-Guerrero Trust Fund 977

Cost-sharing - Japan 3,101

Cost sharing - South Africa 945

Total 27,875

Table 2.3. Summary of Resources Managed by the Special Unit for South-South Cooperation, 2005–2007

Number of People

Director Professional(P and L)

SSA General Service Total

1998 3a 7a 12 7 29

2007 4b 7 14c 4 29

Table 2.4. Special Unit Staffing

Source: Report on the Implementation of the Third Cooperation Framework for South-South Cooperation (2005–2007) ,Report of theAdministrator, presented to the UNDP Executive Board, Annual Session, 2007 June, DP 2007/30


n The UNDP Administrator also announcedthat, as a matter of corporate policy, TCDCwould receive first consideration in UNDPprogramming. In addition, TCDC would bemainstreamed into all UNDP programmesand projects, and support to TCDC wouldbecome one of the core responsibilities ofUNDP Resident Representatives in the1997–1999 programme cycle;25 and

n The UNDP 2004–2007 Multi-Year FundingFramework (MYFF) recognized South-South cooperation as one of the six drivers ofdevelopment effectiveness to be consciouslyintegrated into UNDP programming.

UNDP pursues South-South cooperation inglobal, regional and country programmes. Globalinitiatives come under the global programmemanaged by BDP. In countries, regional initia-tives are part of UNDP regional programmes andare designed and implemented by the regionalservice centres with oversight from the regionalbureaux. In programme countries, UNDPresponds to needs reflected in the United NationsDevelopment Assistance Framework (UNDAF)since 2002, and its efforts are guided by the countryprogramme document (CPD, known previouslyas the country cooperation framework). In thedecentralized architecture of UNDP, countryoffices are primarily responsible for developingand implementing CPDs in close partnership withthe national government. Regular resources areallocated through regional bureaux, which exerciseoversight mainly on the processes involved andwith limited substantive engagement.26

2.3.2.1 Global Programme The global programme increases opportunities forSouth-South cooperation, building on: economicadvances; institutional, human and technological

capacities; and Southern partnerships. It isexpected to function in liaison with the SpecialUnit through the Third Cooperation Framework.

An explicit objective of the global programme is “to enable developing countries to benefit from an interregional knowledge exchange andsouth-based experiences and learning under the priority goals of the MYFF and ensure thatdevelopment assistance, advice, programmedesign and capacity-building efforts draw onglobal best practices and expertise.”27 The globalprogramme provides:

n Consultancy services to country offices;

n Targeted global projects and partnershipsaddressing key development issues inmultiple regions and leveraging incrementalnon-core resources; and

n Communities of practice or knowledge sharingnetworks, which are managed by BDP.

An example of the South-South cooperationelement in this programme is the InternationalPoverty Centre at Brasilia. The Centre is apartner of the Institute for Applied EconomicResearch, which carries out policy research forthe Brazilian Government. The Centre “works topromote South-South cooperation on appliedpoverty research and specializes in analyzingpoverty and inequality in offering research-basedpolicy recommendations and solutions.”28

Communities of practice or knowledge networksare linked to the global programme and aredesigned to position UNDP as a knowledge-based organization.29 Knowledge networks helpthose working in similar practice or thematicareas to share experience and knowledge witheach other. They combine electronic with face-

25 Ibid.26 UNDP, 2007. Evaluation of Results-Based Management at UNDP. Evaluation Office.27 UNDP, 2006, Annual Report: UNDP Global Programe, Bureau for Development Policy.28 Annual Report of the UNDP Global Programme, BDP, 2006. According to the report, the Centre works with South

African social policy specialists and research institutes, Chinese poverty specialists and policy makers in Mexico and Turkey.29 Since the adoption of the first MYFF in 1999 and subsequent to the approval of the Global Cooperation Framework II, UNDP

instituted the concept of ‘practices’ to enable it to provide required quality, substantive support to programme countries.


to-face communications among group members.UNDP has 22 global networks, which linkUNDP offices in 166 countries.30 Some operatesub-networks, and most of the regional servicecentres operate several regional networks.31

Some are open to the public, while others arerestricted to UNDP staff.

Under BDP management, the global programmehas supported subregional resource facilities(SURFs), which became operational in 1999under the 2001 change process (introduced in1997). Nine SURFs were established32 to providepolicy advice and support services to countryoffices in transforming UNDP into a networkedknowledge organization. Regional centres wereestablished in Bangkok, Bratislava, Colombo andJohannesburg in 1997, and beginning in 2003,SURFs were integrated with the regional pro-grammes into regional service centres.33 Thematicspecialists supported by the global programme workalongside colleagues from regional programmes.This arrangement maximizes the synergies ofknowledge sharing and provides a formal structurefor interregional exchanges of knowledge.

National Human Development Reports (NHDRs)provide an example of UNDP support thatsystematically harnesses South-South exchangesin routine programme activities. UNDP countryoffices have produced over 550 national andsubnational HDRs in 130 countries, withcooperation of the host government and civilsociety organizations. Efforts have also beenexpended to integrate and use the experience ofNHDRs around the globe.

The UNDP Human Development ReportOffice (HDRO) initiated the first nationalreports in 1992, and a number of countriesproduced NHDRs with little or no guidancefrom HDRO. HDR-Net was created in 1999 topool the expertise of individuals and nationalteams. In 2000, a special unit in HDRO set up aWeb forum to provide guidance and set qualitystandards. Efforts were made to institutionalizemining HDR-Net for best practices, lessonslearned and summaries of network discussions, aswell as for peer reviews to assure quality andincentives in the form of annual awards foroutstanding reports and innovations.

The regional bureaux and the NHDR Unit nowhold joint periodic regional and global workshopsand training courses for NHDR teams toexchange information among and within regions.A two-way interaction between user groups andheadquarters has produced effective guidance tomaximize quality and impact. NHDRs are indemand around the globe and would be producedwith or without support from headquarters;however, by enabling countries to share and learnfrom each other’s experiences, UNDP globalsupport has improved the quality, outreach andimpact of national reports over time.34 Themodality of South-South cooperation has improvedboth national capacities and UNDP effectiveness.

2.3.2.2 Regional Programmes UNDP regional programmes provide a platformto share best practices and draw attention toinnovation and good practices. They often use

30 Practice networks: governance, environment, HIV/AIDS, poverty reduction, crisis prevention and recovery; managementfamily networks: finance, procurement, human resources, management, project management; other networks: capacitydevelopment, communications, UN coordination practice, evaluation, gender, harmonized approach to cash transfers(HACT), human development report networks (HDR-Net), MDG-Net, information and communications technologies(ICTs) for development, evaluation, human rights, local governance and the Small Enterprise and Finance Network(SemFinNet). Source: UNDP Web site; see http://practices.undp.org/ks/docs/Global%20Networks%20Brochure_Nov.doc

31 It is estimated that there are over 300 electronic networks in UNDP; however, most of these are organized informally,without a paid facilitator.

32 The nine SURFs included three in Africa (Addis Ababa, Dakar and Pretoria), two in Asia (Bangkok and Kathmandu),two in the Latin America and the Caribbean region (Panama and Port of Spain) and one each in the Arab States (Beirut)and Europe (Bratislava).

33 The Bratislava Centre was already functioning as an integrated Regional Service Centre since 1997.34 Sources: Evaluation of National Human Development Report System (UNDP, 2007), NHDR Web site and interviews with

NHDR Unit.


the region’s intellectual and technical resourcesfor: research; training; extending cross-countrypartnerships and networking; and specificcountry support.

As in the global programme, regional programmesaim to address public goods and challenges, aswell as to minimize negative and encouragepositive spillovers across borders, in areas such as:trafficking; drugs; HIV/AIDS; disaster preven-tion and response; water supply and use; andenvironmental management. The regionalprogrammes also enable countries to advocatecollectively for equitable, transparent traderegimes and other areas of common interest.

The regional programme for Europe and the CISemphasizes a subregional approach, focusing ondevelopment challenges and opportunitiesspecific to smaller groupings of countries withinthe region. In Central Asia, UNDP focuses onsustainable trans-boundary water management.It also partners with the European Union in atrans-border early warning system in theFerghana Valley in Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan, intackling cross-border trafficking in women andchildren, and supports democratic governance.Programming in the Caucasus countries promotesjoint management of shared water and otherresources. To help overcome the lingeringconsequences of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster,the regional programme also provides support tolocal communities and governments.

UNDP supports the New Partnership for Africa’sDevelopment (NEPAD), a regional effort thatstarted in 2004. This support has helped: fund 20studies for about $560,000; create a roster of3,000 African experts for recruitment of staff andconsultants; revamp the NEPAD Web site; andprepare the four-year strategic plan for NEPAD.

UNDP also supports subregional institutions inpursuing South-South cooperation. A notable

example of such a partnership is UNDP supportto the Association of Southeast Asian Nations(ASEAN). This partnership dates back to theinception of ASEAN in 1967. In the early 1970s,UNDP supported the first economic cooperationefforts of ASEAN by sponsoring an in-depthstudy lasting two years and involving 41 interna-tional experts. This effort resulted in the KansuReport (1972), which provided the basis forsubsequent cooperation of ASEAN in industrialdevelopment, agriculture and forestry, transport,finance, monetary and insurance services. Inaddition, the UNDP financial commitment toASEAN subregional programmes grew from$700,000 in the second cycle (1977–1981) to$12.7 million in the fourth cycle (1987–1991),promoting regional cooperation in a wide rangeof areas, from trade and industry to finance andbanking. Currently, the $1.45 million ASEAN-UNDP partnership facility focuses on the policyissues related to regional economic integration,with a focus on minimizing the short-termadjustment costs in Cambodia, Lao PDR,Myanmar and Vietnam.

2.3.2.3 Country ProgrammesAt the country level, UNDP programmes addressnational priorities and are developed andimplemented by country offices in close partner-ship with national governments. Responses tosurveys and case studies show that it is commonfor country offices to seek solutions and expertisefrom countries with similar experience, oftenthrough knowledge networks or communities ofpractice and in some instances, through face-to-face exchanges. In these examples, South-Southcooperation is a modality to identify bestdevelopment practices.35

Countries may seek UNDP expertise to set upsystems, institutions, policies or procedures. Forinstance, according to the Web site of theBrazilian cooperation agency ABC, “The UNDPcountry office was an important partner for the

35 Rare exceptions exist. For instance, in the case study of Barbados it became clear that the country programme itself isbased on South-South cooperation, as it involves 10 island states in the Caribbean.


establishment of ABC by supporting theformation and technical capacity of its staff andbuilding capacity for management and informa-tion to follow projects.” A recent example can befound in Egypt, where the Special Unit and thecountry office, with the Government of Egypt,explored ways in which the country could expandits South-South cooperation.

In other instances, countries have sought UNDPassistance to reach out to other developingcountries, as demonstrated by the case studies ofChina and Thailand. However, electronic surveysalso highlight that countries sometimes wish topursue South-South cooperation by themselves,without assistance from UNDP or the UnitedNations system.

Thailand provides an example of UNDPresponding to a request from a pivotal country tosupport South-South cooperation. The 2007–2011 UNDAF for Thailand has been renamedthe United Nations Partnership Framework(UNPAF) to reflect the commitment of theGovernment of Thailand to enhancing its globalpartnership for development, in accordance withthe eighth MDG.The UN system is committed toa UNPAF outcome whereby Thailand will expandits South-South cooperation engagements by2011 and deliver technical and financial supportto other countries in Asia and beyond through:

n Increased policy dialogue, technical coopera-tion and sharing of experiences betweenThailand and selected countries in Asia,Africa and Latin America;

n More effective aid coordination and delivery; and

n Enhanced Thai contribution to the global aideffectiveness agenda.

The UNDP country partnership in Thailand hasidentified the Thailand International Partnershipfor Development as one of four thematic areas.Accordingly, UNDP supports Thailand in:

n Disseminating knowledge about Thailand’sdevelopment experience beyond its borders;

n Encouraging policy dialogue on new modalitiesand opportunities for Thailand’s developmentcooperation with countries in the region andbeyond, focusing especially on post-conflictcountries such as Afghanistan, Sri Lanka andTimor Leste, and African nations in theareas of HIV/AIDS and SMEs.

The Special Unit and UNDP also work with civilsociety organizations in advancing South-Southcooperation. According to the electronic survey,37 percent of country offices reported supportingSouth-South cooperation through non-govern-mental organizations. A UNDP initiative that dealsdirectly with non-governmental organizations isthe Global Environment Facility (GEF) SmallGrants Programme (SGP). SGP supports non-governmental and community-based organizationsin 95 developing countries towards environmentalconservation while generating sustainable liveli-hoods. More than 7,000 grants have been awardedthrough SGP, averaging around $20,000 each.While UNDP does not regard SGP as South-South cooperation, the programme has stimulatedconsiderable exchange of experience amonggrassroots organizations in developing countries.

2.3.2.4 UNDP Resources and Capacity With the exception of the resources allocated tothe Special Unit, it is not possible to track theresources allocated to South-South cooperationin UNDP, because there is no separate budgetline for South-South cooperation. Countryoffices are expected to use TRAC-1 resources36

36 Targets for Resource Allocation from the Core (TRAC) scheme earmarks 55 percent of UNDP core resources for country programmes and projects. Countries are given access to this common pool (referred to as TRAC 1) through threetiers of funding. The first tier (30 percent), designated as TRAC 1.1.1, is immediately assigned to countries. The secondtier (20 percent), or TRAC 1.1.2, is assigned by region, for subsequent assignment to countries on the basis of merit.The third tier (6.6 percent), TRAC 1.1.3, is for countries in special development situations, such as those designated as least developed, or those undergoing natural disasters or economic/political crises. (source: UNDP Web site:http://www.undp.org/cpr/disred/english/wedo/wedo.htm)


or to mobilize resources through cost-sharingwith third parties or host governments. Theannual expenditure of the global programme in2006 was $26 million, about 10–20 percent ofBDP expenditure and nearly 50 percent of itsworkload.37 The combined expenditure underthe five regional programmes was $100 million.38

2.3.3 WORKING TOGETHER

The mandate of the Special Unit includescoordinating South-South cooperation matterswithin UNDP. It also requires the Special Unit towork with UNDP country offices, regionalcentres and headquarters, as well as to contributeto UNDP discussions and decision-makingprocesses related to South-South cooperation.UNDP has the responsibility to: strengthen theSpecial Unit to help it promote and mainstreamSouth-South cooperation in UNDP programmes;orient UNDP activities to support South-Southcooperation; and ensure adequate funding of theSpecial Unit.

Institutional links complementing the operationsof UNDP and the Special Unit for South-SouthCooperation have evolved over the years. Thethree cooperation frameworks since 1997 formal-ized collaborative arrangements. The SecondCooperation Framework, for instance, proposedto develop a strategy to mainstream South-Southcooperation within UNDP as part of its efforts tomainstream South-South cooperation in the UNsystem. Specific guidelines were to be developedfor integrating South-South cooperation system-atically into UNDAF, country and regionalcooperation frameworks, as well as into theStrategic Results Framework. The Special Unitwas to play a key role in devising a methodologythat would capture the results of country andregional support to South-South cooperationthat were to be reflected in the results-orientedannual reports. Qualitative and quantitativeparameters were to be developed for the purpose.The third cooperation framework proposed that

the Special Unit would work in internallymatrixed arrangements with UNDP countryoffices, regional service centres and headquarterunits to mainstream South-South cooperation in UNDP. One of its proposals was to developoversight instruments consisting of clear guidelineson how to mainstream South-South cooperationin UNDP, including the country cooperationframeworks, common country assessments,UNDAF and the UNDP global programme.Other proposals included developing monitoringand evaluation tools, and educational andtraining instruments.

This evaluation noted that the director of theSpecial Unit was previously a member of thesenior management team of UNDP, but is not amember of the operations group that replaced it.

The Special Unit also provides guidelines topromote South-South cooperation in UNDP.The document Technical Cooperation amongDeveloping Countries was prepared by the SpecialUnit in 1978 for inclusion in the UNDPProgramming Manual. Guidelines for the Review ofPolicies and Procedures Concerning TCDC was firstissued by the Special Unit in 1997 and has sincebeen in use by UN organizations, serving as aguide on South-South cooperation. This documentwas updated (TCDC/13/3) and finally endorsedby the High-Level Committee on South-SouthCooperation and the General Assembly in 2003.In addition, the Special Unit has recentlyprovided inputs to the UNDP 2008–2011Strategic Plan on South-South cooperation.

There are a number of examples of joint activitiesby the Special Unit and UNDP. For example, theSpecial Unit collaborated with BDP to organizethe first roundtable on remittances in 2006.WIDE, the flagship initiative under the ThirdCooperation Framework, was recently revampedin collaboration with BDP and UNDP regionalservice centres. As part of this process, WIDE

37 UNDP, 2006. Global Programme Annual Report. Bureau for Development Policy.38 Data from ATLAS snapshot and evaluations of the regional cooperation frameworks for Africa, Asia and Latin America.


was linked to UNDP and other UN networksand, importantly, made available to institutionsoutside the system through roster managers. TheSpecial Unit also consults with the regionalbureau when identifying appropriate partners forregional initiatives. The role of the Special Unitin reviewing new country programme documentsis another opportunity to institutionalize collab-oration. As part of their oversight functions eachyear, the five regional bureaux review approxi-

mately 25 new country programme documentsbefore the documents are submitted to theExecutive Board for approval. During the review,the bureaux invite relevant headquarters units tojoin project appraisal committees, providing theSpecial Unit with an opportunity to comment onSouth-South cooperation aspects. Participationof the Special Unit in these committees is ad hoc;not all regional bureaux regularly invite andreceive inputs from the Special Unit.

C H A P T E R 3 . K E Y F I N D I N G S 2 1

The evaluation recognizes that UNDP programmes’effectiveness in promoting and supportingSouth-South cooperation depends upon: thepriority each country places on South-Southcooperation; the demand from programmecountries to involve UNDP; and UNDP capacityto provide support. The governmental expertpanel convened by the UNDP Administrator in1989 (HLC decision 6/4) identified impedi-ments to realizing the full potential of TCDC incountries and the UN system. These included:lack of awareness of its potential, usefulness andapplicability; lack of effective focal points; lack ofpolicies and procedures; and shortage of funds.The evaluation finds that these impedimentspersist in UNDP and the Special Unit.

The Special Unit and UNDP have undertaken anumber of initiatives in South-South cooperationin the mandated areas of: sensitization andadvocacy; promoting South-South cooperationin developing countries; developing and support-ing knowledge platforms; coordination withinthe UN system; and resource mobilization.However, the electronic survey showed that only19 percent of UNCT members and 22 percent ofUNDP Resident Representatives felt that theoverall contribution of UNDP to South-Southcooperation over the past five years had beeneffective or very effective.

The remainder of this chapter sets out thefindings of this evaluation in a number of facetsof South-South cooperation.

UNDP is well positioned to promote South-South cooperation.UNDP—with a presence in 166 countries, non-partisan status, a vast store of development

knowledge, and ability to bring partnerstogether—is well positioned to mobilize multi-lateral support for least-developed countries,Small Island Developing States and landlockeddeveloping countries.

Given its mandate and role in coordinating UNsystem-wide development activities in eachcountry, UNDP is well situated to work closelywith other UN agencies and countries of theNorth in pursuit of South-South cooperation.The possibility of undertaking both effectiveadvocacy and dissemination of experiences andlessons learned places UNDP in a uniqueposition to promote South-South cooperation.

UNDP has substantial experience with South-South cooperation; however,shared understanding is limited.UNDP has accumulated a wealth of relevantexperience in the course of helping countriesaddress development challenges. For example,the evaluation of the GEF SGP administered byUNDP shows considerable exchange of experi-ence among developing countries. For instance,the Pakistan SGP influenced other SGPs aroundthe world: SGP steering committees from Iran,Malaysia and India visited Pakistan, and thenational coordinator of the Pakistan SGP ledinception missions to Iran and Ethiopia.39

UNDP knowledge networks and SURFs, nowregional service centres, have provided usefulplatforms for interested countries to drawappropriate development practices, policies andapproaches from the experience of others.

Yet UNDP often does not label—or even explicitlyrecognize—these activities as South-Southcooperation. In UNDP Barbados, for example,

Chapter 3

KEY FINDINGS

39 GEF, 2007 ‘Evaluation of GEF Small Grants Programme, Pakistan Case Study’.

C H A P T E R 3 . K E Y F I N D I N G S2 2

knowledge sharing was heavily focused onSouth-South cooperation; however, it was notrecognized as such. Responses to the electronicsurvey and case studies show that many UNDPcountry offices use the knowledge networks toseek South-based expertise and solutions todevelopment challenges but do not think of themas South-South cooperation.

UNDP staff do not share an understanding ofwhat South-South cooperation means or itsimplications for effective UNDP developmentsupport to countries. This is confirmed byinterviews with stakeholders. Outside the SpecialUnit, many UNDP managers were not clear onwhat South-South cooperation meant. Somesenior staff members of UNDP held the viewthat South-South cooperation was primarily aboutUNDP using consultants from the South. Duringthe evaluation team’s missions, most meetingswith UNDP and the UN country team wouldbegin by someone asking the evaluation team todefine South-South cooperation and explainwhat it meant. In addition, many UNDP officialsin headquarters, regional or country offices werenot aware of the value that South-South cooper-ation added to the organization’s work.

3.1 APPROACHES TO PROMOTESOUTH-SOUTH COOPERATION

UNDP gives South-South cooperation organizational priority but inadequate support.MYFF II made South-South cooperation one of the drivers of development effectiveness.Country offices are required to report annuallyon activities related to South-South cooperationin their results-oriented annual reports. However,this evaluation found that this high organiza-tional priority has not translated into prioritizingSouth-South cooperation in UNDP programmes.MYFF II did not articulate UNDP deliverablesor modalities of engagement in South-South

cooperation. Many headquarters units pointedout that there was no clear operational definitionof a driver. In contrast, when a priority wasexpressed as a service line in the MYFF, invest-ments were made in guidance, capacity develop-ment and tracking performance. This hadconsequences for UNDP operational support toSouth-South cooperation.

The evaluation team found no guidance materialavailable to country offices to operationalizeSouth-South cooperation. The UNDP ResultsManagement Guide (previously known as the UserGuide or the Programming Manual) lists South-South cooperation as a core value, yet offers noguidance on how to operationalize it.40 The onlyguidance available is the Revised Guidelines(TCDC/13/3). While these guidelines helpedclarify the principles and provided useful indica-tors for UN system-wide efforts on South-Southcooperation, this evaluation found the documentto be of limited relevance to country offices’programming needs.

Individual initiatives, not institutionaldirection, drive UNDP efforts.The individual initiatives of Resident Representativesor bureau directors, rather than systematicorganizational policies and guidance, determinethe extent to which UNDP programming reflectscommitment to South-South cooperation—whether learning from and strengtheningongoing South-South cooperation activities orpromoting demand for South-South cooperationin developing countries. An informal South-South cooperation network of 18 UN ResidentCoordinators and their respective focal points inAsia, Africa, the Arab region and Latin Americawas recently created by initiatives of committedResident Coordinators. The network sharesinformation and complements each office’sSouth-South cooperation capabilities. However,this is not an organization-wide phenomenon.41

Ten of the 23 draft country programme documents

40 This Results Management Guide became effective in January 2006. There were many different versions prior to this date,and even this version was being updated at the time of this evaluation.

41 Letter to the Administrator from the Resident Coordinator of Egypt; facts verified by the team.


submitted for approval by the Executive Board in2006 did not refer to South-South cooperation asan area to promote and encourage. Of the 24countries in the region serviced by the Bureau ofLatin America and the Caribbean, 11 did notreport any activity under South-South coopera-tion in their 2005 results-oriented annual reports.

When national priorities are made clear, countryoffices respond. For example, 20 of 22 UNDPoffices in pivotal countries have explicit orimplicit commitment to South-South cooperationactivities in their current country programmes.The Mali case study found that, while countryoffices respond to requests for South-Southcooperation, it remains a low priority in countryprogrammes due to a lack of an explicit coopera-tion objective and assigned resources. In theabsence of clear directives, making South-Southcooperation an explicit objective of the UNDAFor CPD depends upon the enthusiasm of aparticular Resident Representative. The evalua-tion finds the UNDP approach is reactive ratherthan proactive, ad hoc rather than systemic.

Electronic survey results reinforce this view,indicating that 35 percent of UNDP respondentsfelt that the mandate for South-South coopera-tion was only “somewhat explicit.” Eight percentthought that South-South cooperation was notan explicit mandate, and 71 percent of UNCTrespondents stated that promotion of South-South cooperation was not a UNDAF objective.

Cooperation frameworks for South-Southcooperation have well-defined strategies,but the approach is largely supply-driven.The cooperation frameworks clearly demonstratethat the Special Unit has developed a vision andstrategy to promote South-South cooperation.The three platforms of the Third CooperationFramework provide a useful basis for the strategicorientation of South-South cooperation initia-tives. This framework builds on the previous two,in order to provide much-needed continuity for

the existing programmes. Yet many stakeholdersshared the concern of the Director of the SpecialUnit regarding the “urgent need” to consolidate“numerous aspirations into a manageableagenda.”42 The Special Unit handled 21 projectsstarting in 2005 under the Third CooperationFramework (2005–2007), of which only five havebeen completed. Most of the projects are small,with budgets between $100,000 and $300,000.

In conformity with the Special Unit’s mandate,the Third Cooperation Framework emphasizesthat the interests of least-developed countries,landlocked developing countries and SmallIsland Developing States should be an area ofspecial focus. The programme profile of theSpecial Unit clearly indicates that its activitieswere concentrated in the poorer regions andaround the African region. However, there wasno evidence of systematic efforts to identify thecollective demands of the target countries, asmandated by the New Directions for TechnicalCooperation among Developing Countries. Needsassessments—such as the needs assessment for theSMEs in Africa or the consequences of implement-ing regional treaties in Economic community ofWest African states, East African Communityand Caribbean Community countries—wereconducted on an ad hoc basis, without clearrationale for prioritizing the choices.

The results-based approach to South-South cooperation is weak.UNDP has been unable to build a credible bodyof evaluative evidence on its contribution toSouth-South cooperation. During countrymissions, the evaluation team found no inventories,tracking or monitoring of South-South coopera-tion efforts or evaluations of these activities. Inthe electronic survey, for instance, 90 percent ofUNDP Resident Representatives reported that inthe past five years, their country offices had notconducted an evaluation of South-South cooper-ation. The evaluation found that, while activitieswere reported in the results oriented annual reports,

42 Director of Special Unit for South-South Cooperation, 2005.


outcomes were not. The evaluation did not findany monitoring or evaluation tools to assessoutcomes related to South-South cooperationmade available to UNDP country offices.Regular information on South-South coopera-tion was not required at any level, nor weremanagers at any level held accountable forSouth-South cooperation. The absence ofsystematic documentation within UNDP makesit difficult to assess its contribution. To thatextent, UNDP management has very limitedability to assess progress, take corrective action ordevise future strategies. This, once again, reflectsthe low corporate priority for South-Southcooperation in UNDP.

To illustrate key South-South cooperation activi-ties and how to evaluate them, TCDC/13/13provides a useful set of indicators to be used bythe UN development system (presented in Annex5).43 Yet reports by the Special Unit to theExecutive Board on the implementation of thecooperation frameworks44 continue to presentresults in the form of activities, rather than usingthese indicators.

The evaluation finds that there is very limitedand certainly inadequate documented evidence tomake general statements about UNDP contribu-tion to strengthening capacity. There are a fewexamples in which South-South cooperation hasbeen more than inputs-driven and has strength-ened institutions and capacities at thesubregional, national and local levels. One recentevaluation points to the contribution of the UNInter-Agency Project on Human Trafficking in the Greater Mekong Sub-Region.45 Startedin 2000, this project was part of the regionalprogramme and aimed to reduce the severity andharm associated with human trafficking in the

subregion. It succeeded in establishing aCoordinated Mekong Ministerial Initiativeagainst Trafficking in the Greater Mekong Sub-Region, consisting of the Governments of Cambodia, China, Lao PDR, Myanmar,Thailand and Vietnam. In addition, the projectcatalyzed anti-trafficking policies and activities at subregional and national levels. Visits or other forms of exchanges with ASEANneighbours supported by UNDP have influencedreforms and innovative programmes in LaoPDR. These include the formation of theNational Commission for the Advancement of Women, based on visits to the nationalcommittees in the Philippines and Vietnam.46

The GEF SGP and NHDRs also provide goodexamples of strengthening local capacities.

Implementation strategy favours technicalover social considerations.This evaluation finds that implementation strate-gies of the Special Unit have focused on thetechnical aspects of initiatives and ignored thesocial consequences. In identifying or designinginitiatives, the evaluation found no evidence toindicate that UNDP uses either a rights-basedapproach, as mandated by the UN, or the sustain-able human development approach, which is themandate of UNDP itself. For instance, whilepromoting public-private partnership was foundto be a very necessary and useful step inpromoting South-South cooperation, neither thecooperation framework nor the publications ofthe Special Unit on this subject reveal howcorporate social responsibility is addressed byinitiatives under this platform.

The evaluation found no clear articulation in theSpecial Unit or UNDP of the goals and strategiesfor promoting public-private partnerships. There

43 High-Level Committee on the Review of Technical Cooperation among Developing Countries, 2003. Revised Guidelinesfor the Review of Policies and Procedures Concerning Technical cooperation Among Developing Countries. TCDC 13/3, 13thSession, 20–27 May 2003. New York.

44 See for example, UNDP, 2007, Report on the Implementation of the Third Cooperation Framework for South-SouthCooperation (2005–2007), Report of the Administrator, Annual Session 2007, 11–22 June. New York.

45 UNDP, 2007. Evaluation of Second Regional Cooperation Framework for Asia and the Pacific 2002–2006. Evaluation Office.46 UNDP, 2007. Assessment of Development Results: Evaluation of UNDP’s Contribution to Lao PDR. Evaluation Office.


was even greater ambiguity on the promotion ofpublic-private partnerships through South-South cooperation. For instance, many exportpromotion programmes are seen as South-Southcooperation, but without adequate attention toensuring that beneficiaries adhere to corporatesocial responsibility and imperatives of humandevelopment. For instance, UNDP Indiasupported the Confederation of IndianIndustries (CII) financially and administrativelyfrom 2001 to 2003. This collaboration facilitatedbusiness deals and economic linkages betweenCII members and other countries in the South.The India desk study showed that such collabo-ration ended because of inadequate planning.Stakeholder interviews in other case studycountries confirm that country-level efforts onpublic-private partnerships are often ad hoc.

Strategies to mainstream South-Southcooperation and create awareness met withlimited results.Mainstreaming South-South cooperation as adriver of development effectiveness withinUNDP and across the UN system is one of thekey elements of the Third CooperationFramework. The Special Unit contributed tostrengthening global advocacy for South-Southcooperation through its function as thesecretariat of the HLC and made substantivecontributions in order to articulate the HLCposition in promoting South-South cooperation(e.g., documenting global progress in implement-ing the BAPA every two years for the HLC,preparing the new direction strategy for South-South cooperation). The Special Unit alsoprovided technical assistance in facilitatingdialogue in the follow-up to the recommenda-tions of the first South Summit held in 2000, the2003 Marrakech High-Level Conference onSouth-South Cooperation and the Second South

Summit of 2005. However, advocacy formainstreaming South-South cooperation withinUNDP and the UN system was not effective.The results of the six activities included in theThird Cooperation Framework under Platform 1to mainstream South-South cooperation arepresented in Table 3.1.

This evaluation finds that UNDP follow-up andoutreach efforts related to South-South coopera-tion are weak. For example, the MacroeconomicPolicies and Poverty Reduction Programmeaimed to build capacity for regional policyanalysis and advocate links between growth,employment and poverty reduction usingresearch, training and advocacy. The resultingthirty studies and knowledge products benefitedfrom South-South exchanges. The programmesuffered from weak dissemination, lack ofadvocacy and follow-up.47 As the Bangladeshexperience highlights, when dissemination isactively pursued, studies are well received andreports are influential with policymakers.48

3.2 MAKING THE MOST OFSTRENGTHS AND INSTITUTIONALCAPACITY TO PROMOTE SOUTH-SOUTH COOPERATION

UNDP has not fully utilized its knowledgebase to support South-South cooperation.Knowledge networks are continuing to grow andare widely used by members. There were 28,997subscribers to major networks in February 2007,compared with 8,916 in 2003.49 The evaluationof the Second Global Cooperation Frameworkreported that the number of referrals increasedfrom 753 to 1,992 from January 2000 to July2003.50 During the same time period, thenumber of best-practice event participants persix-month period increased from 184 to 1,139.51

47 UNDP, 2007. Evaluation of Second Regional Cooperation Framework for Asia and the Pacific 2002–2006. Evaluation Office.48 Ibid.49 Knowledge Networks Web site, UNDP: http://practices.undp.org/ks/docs/Global%20Networks%20Brochure_Nov.doc.50 UNDP, 2004. Evaluation of the Second Global Cooperation Framework, Evaluation Office.51 Ibid.


Most of these networks are directly relevant toSouth-South cooperation. The same evaluationnoted the example of UNDP Sri Lanka, whichrequested information on the types of servicesUNDP had offered to presidential offices ofdifferent countries and received 12 responseswithin 48 hours.

However, this evaluation finds that UNDP islosing an opportunity to capitalize on its strengths.While knowledge networks and communities ofpractice provide an enabling environment for South-South information exchange, in practice they arelimited to improving particular programmes orprojects. UNDP does not use them to engagewith South-South cooperation in a systemic way,

in order to: analyze and understand the structuralneeds behind the queries posted; map demandacross sectors, practice areas and regions; identifygaps in capacities and emerging trends in South-South cooperation; codify this knowledge baseand experience within a South-South cooperationframework; or feed results back into the organiza-tion to allow for development of better strategies.

Regional service centres, country offices and mostknowledge networks do not profile priorities forsupply and demand of South-South cooperationin host countries, subregions or regions.

There are instances of good practice in buildingon an existing knowledge base of South-South

Commitments for activities for mainstreaming South-South cooperationunder the Third Cooperation Framework

Effectiveness

Prepare programming instruments thatinclude methodologies and information onvarious models of South-South programmes,such as triangular cooperation and the stepstaken in organizing a capacity and needsmatching exercise.

None of the UNDP case study country offices wereaware of such programming instruments.

Prepare oversight instruments consisting ofclear guidelines on how to include South-South cooperation in key programmingdocuments in the UN system.

Partially achieved: revised guidelines were producedin 2003 and included pilot indicators to be used inreporting on progress and results achieved by the UN system. However, the UNDP Results ManagementGuide makes no reference to this document, andindicators are not used by any UNDP programmingdocuments, including CPDs or the results-orientedannual reports.

Prepare monitoring and evaluation tools suchas those used to ensure transparency andaccountability in keeping with the MYFF.

There is no record of any evaluation tool beingdeveloped and shared with case study countries orUNDP Evaluation Office.

Educational and training instruments,including training manuals and course forintegration into the UNDP VirtualDevelopment Academy.

No reference to South-South cooperation either as acourse, or as an element of the seven integratedpractices areas listed on the Web page.

Disseminate promotional materials, includingvideos, brochures and booklets, at variousevents, including meetings, workshops andconferences, by the staff of the Special Unit.

No records are available to ascertain the effectivenessof this mode of dissemination.

Table 3.1. Effectiveness of the Activities of the Special Unit to Mainstream South-South Cooperation in UNDP


cooperation. Technonet Africa is one example.As discussed in Chapter 2, Technonet Africaused Technonet Asia’s 30 years of experience inpromoting small and medium-sized enterprises.While there is no information on specific outputsand outcomes, there are indications that activitiesunder this initiative were well received, forexample, by participants in the training oftrainers for entrepreneurship development, aswell as in a workshop on SME policy and institu-tions (South Africa case study). Participantsattributed the quality of these training exercisesto the expertise of the trainers, who had gainedtheir experience in Technonet Asia.

However, as WIDE illustrates, positive experi-ence is not the rule. As noted in Chapter 2,WIDE, the flagship initiative of the ThirdCooperation Framework, was recently revampedin collaboration with UNDP regional servicecentres and BDP. It is now linked to UNDP andother UN networks and, importantly, opened toinstitutions outside the system through rostermanagers. WIDE is now linked to 40 rosters ofexperts within the UN system and reported 1,342referrals in 2006.52 However, case studies showthat government officials and stakeholders werenot aware of the changes made to WIDE. TheSpecial Unit has not followed up to discover howthe rosters are being used, or to analyse theknowledge networks under WIDE, in order tocodify experience and feedback for participatingagencies and countries.

UNDP has not sufficiently leveraged the strengths of the UN system to promote South-South cooperation.Consultations with Geneva-based UN organiza-tions pointed out that relationships betweenUNDP and other UN agencies were not based onexplicit coordination mechanisms or agreementon collaborative efforts. Some agencies pointedout that, after shifting from being a fundingagency to being an implementation agency,UNDP had extended its operations to areas such

organizations consider within their ownmandates, particularly those of trade and invest-ment. At times, this created tension instead offacilitating coordination.

Responses from the electronic survey point to asimilarly ad hoc nature of coordination of South-South cooperation interventions at the countrylevel. Among UNCT respondents, 65 percentsaid that South-South cooperation coordinationtakes the form of ad hoc meetings, and 73 percentof UNDP respondents concurred. Only 21percent of UNCT respondents reported thatthere were regular consultations.

The UNDAF mechanism offers the possibilityfor greater coordination and coherence. However,76 percent of survey respondents in UNDP notedthat promotion of South-South cooperation wasnot a UNDAF objective in their country.

The Special Unit has joint initiatives; however,similar to the UN Day for South-SouthCooperation, these initiatives do not lead tosustained links that bring out synergies. Only afew, such as the remittances workshop referred toin Chapter 2, include a follow-up action resultingin sustained relationships. The Special Unitinitiated the revitalization of the focal pointnetwork, beginning with 15 Economic Communityof West African States countries. However, manyUNCTs reported that progress had been heldback by the poor coordination of South-Southcooperation efforts and the low visibility of theSpecial Unit with local governments. Interviewswith stakeholders confirm the observation that,in many countries, the focal point system forSouth-South cooperation is not strong enough toprovide vibrant leadership.

Systematic collaboration between the Special Unit and UNDP is inadequate.Achieving the goals of the Third CooperationFramework requires close collaboration betweenthe Special Unit and UNDP. The universal

52 Brewster, M., 2007. Internal Evaluation of the Implementation Activities Supported under the Third Cooperation Frameworkby the Special Unit for South-South Cooperation. International Development Consulting, Inc. New York. April.


presence of UNDP offers a platform for theSpecial Unit to promote and advocate for South-South cooperation at the country level, whileclose ties between the Special Unit and programmecountries provide a valuable asset to leveragecountry support in order to address sensitivetrans-boundary issues through South-Southexchanges. However, with the exception offinancial transactions, there is no systematiccollaboration between the Special Unit andUNDP. While useful collaborative efforts exist,collaborative efforts as a whole were found to beinadequate and ineffective in key areas of mutualsupport, such as: UN system-wide coordinationof South-South cooperation activities; initiativesto mainstream South-South cooperation withinUNDP and at the country level; and strengtheningthe effectiveness of knowledge networks inpromoting South-South cooperation.

Case studies show that the Special Unit has notadequately leveraged UNDP strengths inpromoting South-South cooperation at thecountry level, or in coordinating South-Southcooperation efforts with UNCTs. Of respondingUNCT members, 94 percent reported that theywere either not familiar (57 percent) or onlysomewhat familiar (37 percent) with the role andfunction of the Special Unit.

This evaluation finds that participation of theSpecial Unit in programme advisory committeesat headquarters is not institutionalized. Someregional bureaux invite and receive inputs fromthe Special Unit on a regular basis, while othersdo not.

The recent move to post regional advisers of theSpecial Unit in regional service centres is a steptowards stronger joint action to promote South-South cooperation. However, the results aremixed. Thus far, the regional adviser’s presencehas produced the intended results in Thailand,but not in Johannesburg.

This evaluation concurs with the recent internalreview that, “Beyond initial consultation, theredoes not appear to be great interaction betweenUNDP units.” UNDP country offices offeredmostly “logistical or administrative support, andSouth-South cooperation was not a main thrustof these activities.”53

3.3 INCENTIVE STRUCTURES AND RESOURCES TO PROMOTESOUTH-SOUTH COOPERATION

The evaluation found no system for rewarding bestpractices in mainstreaming South-South cooper-ation. Lack of internal incentives and directionhas prevented UNDP from making better use ofits resources and assets. The organization has notmined its knowledge and experience to analyzeeither sectoral demands for South-South cooper-ation or emerging trends. The visited countryoffices were not active in profiling demand forSouth-South cooperation in their countries. Theevaluation found a noticeable disconnect betweenthe ad hoc manner in which country offices andknowledge networks were accumulating experienceand the stated corporate priority of integratingpromotion and advocacy of South-South cooper-ation in UNDP programming.

The case studies point out that mainstreamingSouth-South cooperation has been slow, becauseUNDP has not earmarked resources for relevantcountry-level programming. UNDP stakeholdersin case study countries felt that South-Southcooperation was unlikely to get attention, until anew line item was created in the budget. Theypointed to significant resource constraints inUNDP programmes to promote South-Southcooperation. Stakeholders in Brazil also notedthat the International Poverty Centre at Brasiliahad to circumscribe its activities considerably as aresult of inadequate funding.54

53 Ibid.54 Brazil case study.


Special Unit has consistently mobilizednon-core resources, yet the total resourcesavailable remain inadequate to cover the wide scope of activities.As resources declined, UNDP, the sole providerof regular resources for the Special Unit, wasunable to maintain the support level promised in1997, or 0.5 percent of total programmeresources. Support was, therefore, fixed at $3.5million for 2003–2005 and raised to $4.5 millionunder the current UNDP Strategic Plan(2008–2011). The Special Unit has consistentlymobilized non-core resources. However, with 15regular professional staff and less than $9 millionavailable annually, the Special Unit is expected to:serve as the secretariat for the HLC; support theOffice of the Chairman of the Group of 77 andChina; manage the trust funds related to South-South cooperation; promote and coordinateSouth-South cooperation activities within theUN system; and promote South-South coopera-tion at the country level.

Previous evaluations55 echoed the statementmade on behalf of G77 and China that observedthat, “The pattern of cooperation had unfortu-nately not been commensurate with the compre-hensive nature of the commitments contained inthe various declarations and other documents forSouth-South cooperation, as well as with theexisting capabilities and capacities in the South.The inadequate financial resources allocated insupport of South-South cooperation programmescontinue to constitute a serious obstacle to theirpromotion and effectiveness.”56 In this regard,the South Fund for Development andHumanitarian Assistance, created at the SecondSouth Summit in Doha in 2005, was a welcomesign of commitment to South-South coopera-tion. Notwithstanding, the Special Unit’s humanand financial resources remain inadequate toassist target countries.

3.4 PREPAREDNESS TO MEETEMERGING CHALLENGES

The preceding discussions clearly show thatSouth-South cooperation is not seen as a priorityin many country programmes, and that UNDPhas not been able to fully leverage its position topromote South-South cooperation in the past. Itis also evident that the Special Unit and UNDPdo not have systematic mechanisms to identify theneeds of target countries. One of the historicalimperatives of South-South cooperation is theattempt at levelling the playing field throughcooperation among countries of the South.As noted earlier, the North-South gap may bediminishing in a number of areas and at anaggregate level. However, current trends also pointto growing inequalities in the South. As BAPArecommended, one of the most significant prioritiesfor UNDP is to fulfil its mandate of strengtheninggeographically and economically marginalizedcountries. This includes: improving these countries’capacity to formulate strategic responses to theimperatives of the new order; enhancing theireffectiveness in negotiating the emerging order;and sharpening their competitiveness within it.This evaluation finds that neither the MYFF northe cooperation frameworks have incorporatedtransparent consultative processes to identify theneeds of target countries in a systematic manner.

Analysis of past evaluations, network discussions,case studies and survey responses indicates that theareas that are becoming increasingly important toUNDP involvement in South-South cooperationinclude conflict prevention and recovery, disasterpreparedness, climate change, trade and intra-South development cooperation.

As South-South cooperation evolves, it may embodya wide range of development approaches, not all ofwhich will enhance people’s choices or promotehuman development, which is the mandate ofUNDP. This evaluation did not find sufficient

55 UNDP, 1999. 20 Years of South-South Partnership Building, An Assessment of Technical Cooperation among DevelopingCountries (TCDC), 1978–1998. Special Unit for TCDC. July.

56 Excerpted from the statement on behalf of the Group of 77 and China by Ambassador Mohamed Bennouna, PermanentRepresentative of the Kingdom of Morocco to the United Nations and Chairman of the Group of 77 before the 13thSession of the HLC (May 2003).


emphasis on these aspects in policy documentssuch as the Third Cooperation Framework, orsufficient evidence that UNDP designs andimplements its South-South cooperation effortsbased on a human development approach.

The UNDP role in middle-income countries is yet to be defined.Although critical for its current and futurestrategic position in South-South cooperation,UNDP has yet to evolve a corporate strategy forits engagement in middle-income countries.Instances of strategic initiatives to engage in suchpartnerships to promote South-South coopera-tion are available, as illustrated by the Chapter 2examples of China, Egypt and Thailand.However, as shown by the case studies of Braziland Guatemala, such partnerships are not therule. A number of Assessments of DevelopmentResults (evaluations of UNDP performance atthe country level) have pointed out that UNDPhas not developed context-appropriate approachesfor engaging in middle-income countries.

In the Latin American model, UNDP mainlycarries out administrative functions such asprocurement for governmental bodies. As shownby the Brazil and Guatemala case studies, thisdependence may have weakened the UNDPposition to advocate South-South cooperation inthe long term. South-South cooperation is amuch more politically complex issue than the

traditional UNDP development engagement withcountries. The electronic survey responses showthat countries do not always find it necessary toinvolve UNDP or the UN system in their South-South cooperation efforts. However, interviews withmember states point to a number of instances inwhich UNDP has lost opportunities to furtherSouth-South cooperation, because it did not havea clear strategy or vision to pursue such coopera-tion, particularly in middle-income countries.

Horizontal links across regions are inadequate to strengthen interregional South-South cooperation.Increasingly, South-South cooperation is takingplace not only within but also across regions. Thisevaluation finds that inadequate institutionalhorizontal links among country offices—wheremost of South-South cooperation happens—limit the ability of the organization to initiate andfacilitate inter-regional South-South exchanges.Knowledge networks links UNDP countryoffices across regions. The current system of lineoversight links country offices to specific regionalbureaux, with limited cross-regional contact. Inaddition, the case studies found unevencommunication between regional service centresand country offices, which further limits capital-izing on intraregional opportunities. Forexample, UNDP South Africa was unaware ofthe work of the regional centre, while in Thailandthere were systematic links between the two.

C H A P T E R 4 . C O N C L U S I O N S A N D R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S 3 1

UNDP and the Special Unit have considerableexperience in South-South cooperation and arewell positioned to play a more active and effectiverole in supporting and promoting it. There isrecognition that all countries from the South canbenefit from South-South cooperation. UNDPhas expressed a strong commitment to South-South cooperation in its strategic plans. However,UNDP and the Special Unit have been unable tofully deliver on their mandate to promote andsupport South-South cooperation.

4.1 CONCLUSIONS

I. The effectiveness of support under the ThirdCooperation Framework for South-SouthCooperation is constrained by the mismatchamong the mandate, resources and implemen-tation strategy of the Special Unit.

The mandate of the Special Unit for South-South Cooperation is extensive, not only relativeto UNDP but in absolute terms. Evolving andexpanding over time, the Special Unit functionsto: act as the secretariat to the High-LevelCommittee on the Review of South-SouthCooperation; coordinate UN system-wide South-South cooperation efforts; mobilize resources andmanages funds for South-South cooperation; andsupport South-South cooperation within the UNdevelopment system. The Special Unit hasdifficulty in managing all the activities neededunder such a broad mandate with its availableresources (core $3.5 million, non-core $5.5 millionper annum) and 15 professional staff members.

The three platforms of the Third CooperationFramework for South-South Cooperation providea useful conceptual tool to identify areas of

interventions—a platform to support policydialogue, with emphasis on mainstreaming South-South cooperation as a driver of developmenteffectiveness; a platform to help create an enablingenvironment for public-private partnershipmechanisms for South-South business collaborationand technical exchange, and a platform to manageand share development knowledge. However, indeveloping initiatives, evidence indicates that theSpecial Unit paid insufficient attention toassessing and prioritizing demand from consultationswith target countries. Consequently, the SpecialUnit’s activities are too numerous and diffused,further constraining its resources and capacityand limiting its ability to respond to requests for support.

The Special Unit developed Revised Guidelinesfor the Review of Polices and Procedures ConcerningSouth-South Cooperation (document TCDC/13/3of the High-level Committee on the Review ofTCDC) including a common results frameworkfor the UN development system engaged inSouth-South cooperation. This document wasapproved by the High-level Committee on theReview of South-South Cooperation and theGeneral Assembly in 2003. However, the SpecialUnit itself continues to report activities as resultsand has not produced a results framework that tiesoutputs and outcomes to clearly defined qualita-tive and quantitative indicators. Consequently, itsreviews offer limited evaluative evidence andlearning opportunities.

II. UNDP has not developed a robust andproactive approach to South-South cooperationat the corporate level.

UNDP is mandated to support and promoteSouth-South cooperation by hosting the Special

Chapter 4

CONCLUSIONS ANDRECOMMENDATIONS

C H A P T E R 4 . C O N C L U S I O N S A N D R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S3 2

Unit and through all relevant UNDP-sup-ported programmes.

UNDP does not have a clear strategic frameworkto leverage the Special Unit and other pro-grammes to support South-South cooperation.South-South cooperation was declared to be adriver of development effectiveness in MYFF IIand a principle of development effectiveness in the UNDP Strategic Plan. Yet these plans did not articulate UNDP strategic priorities,deliverables and modalities of engagement inSouth-South cooperation.

There are no clear strategies and institutionalmechanisms to adequately respond to the dynamicchanges occurring in South-South cooperation.Examples of such changes include the rapidexpansion of interregional exchanges and trade,massive trade surpluses in pivotal countries thatresult in new financing arrangements andopportunities to promote South-South coopera-tion. There is continuing demand from disadvan-taged countries for support that would permitthem to benefit from these opportunities.

In addition, UNDP has no clear partnershipstrategies to support or strengthen South-Southcooperation within the UN development systemor among countries of the South. Case studiesshow that other UN agencies are actively involvedin South-South cooperation, yet in manycountries coordination of UN system-wideefforts to prioritize South-South cooperation in national development agenda remains ad hocand inadequate.

The development context varies among thecountries of the South. Some countries have takenthe lead in South-South cooperation and do notrequire support from the UN system; others haverequested UNDP support for their initiatives.Some countries have yet to fully recognize thepotential of South-South cooperation andrequire encouragement to stimulate demand.Clear strategies to partner with governments tosupport and promote the demand for South-South cooperation are not fully in place,especially in pivotal countries.

With its global presence, UNDP has yet to adopta robust approach to support a two-way flow ofknowledge and multi-dimensional experienceamong all countries in the South.

III. UNDP is a responsive partner at thecountry level: however, its effectiveness isconstrained by uneven recognition, inadequateresources and incentives and inability tosystematize learning.

Though many UNDP initiatives currently underway have South-South elements, they are notcorporately recognized as such. There is limitedshared understanding of the concept of South-South cooperation across the organization, andinadequate recognition of the value added bySouth-South cooperation at the operational level.

UNDP has not provided adequate resources tomainstream South-South cooperation in itsprogramming. While UNDP provides theregular (core) resources for the Special Unit, theorganization has not been able to sustain thecommitment (1997) to allocate 0.5 percent of itsannual programme resources to the Special Unit(support is currently fixed at $4.5 million).

Much of what UNDP is doing on South-Southcooperation is the result of individual initiativesand leadership. There is a lack of clear incentivesand guidance to integrate South-South coopera-tion in global, regional and country programmes.

The accountability and reporting systems ofUNDP do not adequately reflect the priority ofsupport for South-South cooperation.

UNDP does not conduct systematic analysis ofthe information on its knowledge networks. Suchanalysis might help to distil modalities ofengagement in South-South cooperation with aneye towards mapping demand areas, identifyingcapacity needs, and codifying the wide experienceof UNDP. Similarly, UNDP has not built a body ofevaluative evidence on its contribution to South-South cooperation, which would have enabledthe organization to learn from its experience.


IV. UNDP and the Special Unit have not fullyleveraged their collective strengths and capacities.

The Special Unit has convening power andspecialized knowledge to facilitate interest andcatalyze demand among partner countries. UNDPhas a networked global presence, a mandate tocoordinate at the country level, and in general,has close interaction with programme countrypartners. Yet the Special Unit and UNDP havenot fully leveraged each other’s strengths.

There are no clear collaborative arrangementsbetween the Special Unit and UNDP at differentoperational levels. The UNDP Strategic Plan,2008–2011, does not reflect the areas of collabo-ration spelled out in the Third CooperationFramework for South-South Cooperation.UNDP has not worked with the Special Unit tocodify relevant experience emerging from thepractice networks. In addition, the Special Unithas not leveraged the UNDP network of countryoffices to identify areas of focus or coordinateSouth-South cooperation efforts of the UNsystem at the country level.

4.2 RECOMMENDATIONS

The rapid evolution of South-South cooperationhas opened a window of opportunity for develop-ing countries to use such cooperation as a meanstowards achieving internationally agreeddevelopment goals, including the MDGs. TheUnited Nations development system has animportant partnership role. Within this partner-ship, UNDP must clearly define the contours ofits engagement with South-South cooperationand revamp its institutional arrangements,including its relationship with the Special Unit.

The following recommendations cover the cooper-ation framework for South-South cooperationand the Special Unit’s role; the responsibility,strategic approach and institutional arrange-ments of UNDP; and collaborative arrangementsbetween UNDP and the Special Unit. Theserecommendations are intended to be mutuallyreinforcing and should be treated as a whole.

I. The Fourth Cooperation Framework forSouth-South Cooperation (managed by theSpecial Unit) should be shaped around threeactivity streams: knowledge sharing; policydevelopment and advocacy; and catalyzinginnovation. Initiatives in each of these streamsshould be time-bound and results-oriented.

The evaluation found that the thrust and the keyelements of the Third Cooperation Frameworkfor South-South Cooperation are still relevant,and that the Special Unit achieved most of theoutputs. However, the full potential of results hasnot been attained, due to the Special Unit’slimited capacity and inadequate leveraging of thestrengths of the United Nations developmentsystem. Specific recommendations made in thisarea do not envisage a fundamental change in thecontent of the Third Cooperation Framework,but rather enable the Special Unit to engage moreclosely with organizations of the UN system toincrease the effectiveness of support to countries.

Knowledge sharing for South-South experience

n The Special Unit should continue to serve asthe repository of knowledge on South-Southcooperation for the UN system and theinternational community. The Unit shouldsystematically engage with governments andall UN agencies to distil good practices,identify proven solutions and expertise, andcodify experience in a user-friendly interac-tive system accessible by the internationaldevelopment community at large.

n The Special Unit should conduct researchand analysis of key emerging trends inSouth-South cooperation. This exerciseshould gauge emerging needs by assessingthe outcomes of the deliberations of relevantintergovernmental fora, as well as by poolingand synthesizing the experience of organiza-tions of the United Nations system.

Policy development and advocacy for South-South cooperation

n The Special Unit should continue itsadvocacy efforts through intergovernmental


fora, regional bodies and national-levelstakeholders. The Special Unit shoulddocument outcomes from these efforts toinfluence the future practice of South-Southcooperation.

n The Special Unit should more effectivelyengage with all UN development agencies, inorder to mainstream South-South cooperationas a modality for development effectiveness.The Unit should establish a mechanism ormechanisms for systematic engagement withagencies to address shared priorities andaction plans. These could include updatingthe policy and procedural guidelines relatedto South-South cooperation and periodicconsultations within the United Nationsdevelopment system.

Catalyzing and innovating to meet emergingdemands of South-South cooperation

The Special Unit should:

n Identify appropriate priorities for action inemerging areas of South-South cooperationby mapping demand through consultationwith target countries and the UN system,supplemented by analysis;

n Develop a select portfolio of time-bound,results-oriented pilot initiatives to addresscritical issues in the areas identified, with theobjective of defining effective South-Southsolutions that can be scaled up and/orreplicated by countries with the support ofthe UN system as appropriate. This portfolioshould be of a manageable size, and shouldbe flexible enough to accommodateadditional demands as they emerge. TheSpecial Unit should undertake only a limitednumber of pilot activities at a given time;

n Support countries in developing policyframeworks to enable them to addressopportunities and constraints in theexpansion of South-South cooperation inareas such as public-private partnerships andcivil society engagement; and

n Manage funds for South-South cooperationon behalf of countries of the South within anaccountable and clearly defined results-oriented framework.

The Fourth Cooperation Framework for South-South Cooperation and its components shouldbe built around clear outcomes that are linked tothe mandate of the Special Unit. The resultschain should logically link outputs to outcomes.

II. In programming initiatives, the Special Unit should adopt strict criteria and leveragethe capacities of UNDP and other relevantUnited Nations organizations to enhance thecontribution of South-South cooperation todevelopment effectiveness.

The evaluation found that the Special Unit is notsufficiently using criteria established by intergov-ernmental fora; nor is it adequately leveraging theglobal networked presence of UNDP and thespecialized mandates of the organizations of theUnited Nations development system. Therecommendations of this evaluation envisage thatthe Special Unit will continue using its conveningpower and specialized knowledge to initiate pilotactivities and will expand its partnerships withrelevant United Nations agencies.

n The initiatives under the Fourth CooperationFramework for South-South Cooperationshould strictly adhere to criteria including:• Strong demand from member countries

(BAPA);• Defined impact on a large number of

countries (New Directions for TechnicalCooperation among Developing Countries,1995); and

• Clear results framework, with a resultschain linking outputs of initiatives tooutcomes sought by the cooperationframework (TCDC 13/3).

n In its pilot initiatives, the Special Unit shouldpartner with governments and relevant UnitedNations agencies from the outset, with a viewto mutual learning, codification, and integra-tion of the pilot experience in the respectivegovernment’s or agency’s programming.


n The Special Unit should have a clear exitstrategy for each pilot project. The govern-ment or partner agency should be prepared toscale up and replicate successful activities,and to provide feedback on programmeexperience and results to the knowledge baseof the Special Unit.

III. UNDP should develop a corporate South-South cooperation strategy that: addressesemerging issues; draws on its own experience;integrates all of its programme frameworks,and is underpinned by resources, incentives andaccountability.

UNDP has islands of success in South-Southcooperation; however, these have not beenintegrated into the corporate approach. As such,this evaluation recommends prioritizing South-South cooperation in programming and takingsteps towards institutionalizing South-Southcooperation approaches.

n At the corporate level, UNDP shouldrespond to dynamic changes and emergingpriorities in South-South cooperation, aswell as to emerging priorities. In doing so,UNDP must consistently and fully reflect thehuman development mandate and the rights-based approach to development. UNDPshould identify key partners to work withand modalities of partnership in diversecontexts, including pivotal countries.

n UNDP should identify a clear set of deliver-ables on South-South cooperation, for whichit assumes responsibility. This should be donethrough an internal discussion with the SpecialUnit, as well as in consultation with partnercountries and other UN system bodies.

n UNDP should develop a results frameworkfor South-South cooperation initiatives in itsstrategic plan, with clear benchmarks andindicators to assess its contribution to South-South cooperation.To support this assessment,UNDP must put in place an effectivemonitoring and evaluation mechanism of allrelated programming activity.

n UNDP should identify South-South cooper-ation priorities through: findings from theanalyses of the Special Unit; UNDP pro-gramming experience at the country, regionaland global level; and systematic consultationswith programme countries. In particular,UNDP should mine experience gained insupporting conflict prevention and recovery;disaster preparedness; climate change; trade,and intra-South development cooperation.

n UNDP should: develop a systematic approachto link South-South considerations in practiceareas and programming at the country,regional and global levels; proactively requireall practice areas to have South-Southconcerns as an element; and develop clearguidance material in the Results ManagementGuide based on the TCDC/13/3 and ensuresupport to South-South cooperation at alllevels of UNDP programming.

n UNDP should reflect the priority placed onSouth-South cooperation in allocating andtracking of resources, developing perform-ance incentives, and implementing accounta-bility and reporting systems.

IV. UNDP and the Special Unit for South-South Cooperation should define clear collab-oration arrangements between the Special Unitand UNDP.

This evaluation found that collaboration betweenUNDP and the Special Unit is not adequatelyinstitutionalized. UNDP must recognize that themandate of the Special Unit goes beyond thework of UNDP and that the cooperationframework should support the full mandate. Inthis area, the following recommendations addressroles and responsibilities, resource allocation andjoint efforts at codification and coordination.

n The Director of the Special Unit should be amember of the Operations Group. Clearcollaborative arrangements between theSpecial Unit and the regional and practicebureaux of UNDP need to be established.Periodic reporting and discussion of the


implementation of the Fourth CooperationFramework for South-South Cooperation, aswell as the results of collaboration with theregional bureaux, corporate units, andcountry offices, should take place at theOperations Group.

n UNDP should revisit its 1997 commitmentto provide 0.5 percent of its total program-ming resources to South-South cooperationand ensure that predictable and adequateresources are made available to both UNDP

and the Special Unit in order to fulfil theSouth-South cooperation mandate.

n UNDP should provide the Special Unit witha platform to engage with United NationsCountry Teams with regard to South-Southcooperation at the country level.

n UNDP and the Special Unit should worktogether to codify existing experience related toSouth-South cooperation by analysing trends,capacity needs and demands. This informationshould be made accessible to partners.

A N N E X 1 . T E R M S O F R E F E R E N C E 3 7

CONTEXT

This evaluation was requested by the ExecutiveBoard of UNDP1 and is part of the evaluationagenda of the UNDP Evaluation Office that wasapproved by the Board on June 2006.

South-South cooperation is defined by UNDP as “a broad framework for collaboration amongcountries of the South, in the political, economic,social, environmental and technical domains.Involving three or more developing countries,South-South cooperation takes place on bilateral,regional, subregional and inter-regional bases.”2

UNDP has promoted South-South cooperationas a global initiative since 1978 to reduce thedependence of developing countries on marketsof developed countries and enhance the bargainingpower of developing and least developedcountries at the international level.3 South-Southcooperation also helps developing countries shareknowledge and experiences to meet commonchallenges such as high population pressure,poverty, hunger, disease, environmental deterio-ration, conflict and natural disasters, and helpsdeal with cross-border issues such as environ-mental protection and HIV/AIDS.

The Special Unit (SU)for South-South cooperationhosted by UNDP serves as the full secretariat ofHigh-Level Committee (HLC) and is responsibleto coordinate and implement all General Assembly-mandated responsibilities and functions, includingthe following: UN system-wide South-South policycoordinator; partnerships facilitator; service provider;and resource mobilizer.4 It prepares all substantivereports,5 manages the United Nations Fund forSouth-South Cooperation and the Perez-Guerrero Trust Fund of the Group of 77 andChina, the India-Brazil-South Africa Facility forPoverty and Hunger Alleviation and implementskey operational programmes funded by UNDP.6

The Third Cooperation Framework (2005–2007)presents the three key objectives of the SU/South-South cooperation: (i) support issues of commonconcern within Southern countries and inmultilateral settings to accelerate developmentthrough South-South approaches to development;(ii) promote self-sustaining mechanisms andplatforms rather than ad hoc forums and confer-ences; and (iii) transform the Special Unit into a South-South knowledge management centre,complementing and linking with global knowledge

Annex 1

TERMS OF REFERENCEEVALUATION OF SOUTH-SOUTH COOPERATION AT UNDP

1 Statement to the Executive Board by Zephirin Diabre, Associate Administrator, 17 June 2004, Item 5: CountryProgrammes and related matters, 14–25 June 2004, Geneva.

2 Source: http://tcdc1.undp.org/faqDetail.aspx?faq_id=1.3 The Special Unit for Technical Cooperation among Developing Countries (TCDC) was set up within UNDP in 1974,

endorsed by the UN General Assembly, on the review of TCDC, which has recently been subsumed under South-Southcooperation. With the growing integration of TCDC and Economic cooperation among Developing Countries (ECDC),both the HLC and the UN General Assembly have recommended a broader focus on South-South cooperation.

4 http://tcdc1.undp.org/index.aspx.5 These include the report of the Secretary-General on the State of South-South cooperation celebrated on 19 December

each year as well as the report of the UNDP Administrator on the implementation of cooperation framework for South-South cooperation every there years.

6 See http://tcdc1.undp.org/faqDetail.aspx?faq_id=6 for a brief history of South-South cooperation.

A N N E X 1 . T E R M S O F R E F E R E N C E3 8

systems of the UNDP and other UN organizations,developing countries and donor organizations.

The Fourth Cooperation Framework is to be presentedto the Executive Board of UNDP. It is necessaryat this point to take stock of the experiences ofthe SU/South-South Cooperation and UNDP inorder to strengthen their future effectiveness.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of the evaluation is to assessUNDP’s contribution to South-South cooperationover the past decade. In doing so, the evaluationwill also address the performance of the SpecialUnit for South-South Cooperation. The evalua-tion aims to provide major lessons learnedthrough assessing what worked and why; andoffer key recommendations for strengthening theeffectiveness of future programming efforts inSouth-South cooperation.

EVALUATION ISSUES

The evaluation will address the following key issues:

1. The nature and extent of support among theSpecial Unit and UNDP in promoting andexpanding South-South cooperation;

2. The ability of UNDP (including the SpecialUnit) to learn from its experience in South-South cooperation to strengthen and institu-tionalize its support to South-South cooper-ation across all practice areas;

3. The appropriateness, relevance, effectivenessand sustainability of UNDP efforts to meetthe varied and evolving demand to strengthenand expand South-South cooperation;

4. UNDP’s preparedness to address emergingdemands in South-South cooperation.

SCOPE

It will cover the period 1996–present. This ‘cut-off ’ period is suggested because of the “newdirections” policy endorsed by the GA/HLC in

1995, and its implementation by the SU/South-South Cooperation from the subsequent year.

The evaluation will address UNDP’s organiza-tional strategy and initiatives to promote South-South cooperation at the global, regional andcountry levels. In doing so, it will assess theperformance of the Special Unit against theThird Cooperation Framework as well as thenature and extent of interaction between theSpecial Unit and UNDP.

The support by the Special Unit to other UNagencies and the High-Level Committee for theReview of South-South Cooperation is beyondthe scope of this evaluation.

In assessing UNDP’s role—i.e., the impact of theprogramme frameworks, institutional as well assubstantive issues will be addressed, taking duenote of the interests and roles of Southernstakeholders. The following issues will beincluded in the scope:

a. Policies of the South-South cooperation agenda,assessing the influence of different stakehold-ers and collaborating institutions on UNDP’smandate as a ‘service provider’, as well aslinkages to UN system-wide mechanisms forsupporting South-South cooperation;

b. Programme performance results: South-South cooperation’s contribution to outputs,outcomes and impacts since 1996;

c. Partnerships for capacity development: SinceSouth-South cooperation is based on partner-ships at the regional and global levels, anassessment should be made of the benefitsfrom the partnerships with UNDP;

d. SU/South-South Cooperation organizationaland resource mobilization strategies, includingan assessment of the role of relevant UNDPbureaux/units in support of the SU/South-South Cooperation, and vice versa;

e. Quality assurance: The extent to which SU/South-South Cooperation mechanisms havebeen established to track and assess results in

A N N E X 1 . T E R M S O F R E F E R E N C E 3 9

a timely manner through a monitoring andevaluation system; and

f. Ownership/sustainability: Factors influenc-ing the motivation for specific developmentinterventions supported by Southern institu-tions, the role and level of engagement ofpartners, the value-added from UNDP’scollaboration and results achieved.

APPROACH

The evaluation will adopt a case study approach.In-depth studies will be conducted in selectcountries selected through purposive sampling.The case studies will involve field visits and ordesk studies, electronic surveys and consultationsat the headquarters.

TASKS AND DELIVERABLES

The evaluation is expected to provide majorlessons learned and key recommendations, that areboth feasible and realistic, for improving UNDP’sfuture programme on South-South cooperation.

The final evaluation products will consist of the following:

n A report on Evaluation of UNDP Role andContribution in South-South Cooperation, notexceeding fifty pages (excluding bibliographyand annexes) with a detailed ExecutiveSummary with recommendations that shouldnot exceed 6–7 pages, to be submitted to theEvaluation Office by 30 July 2007 for formalreview and approval.

n The evaluation report should include the resultsof case studies, key findings and forward-looking recommendations for the Special Unitfor South-South Cooperation and UNDP’sfuture role in South-South cooperation,taking into account the objectives and scopeof these terms of reference.

n A summarized analysis and evaluation of theresults of survey questionnaires to all relevantcountries/stakeholders, as an annex to theevaluation report.

REVIEW PROCESS

The evaluation findings will be reviewed by thestakeholders for factual accuracy, errors ofinterpretation and omission of key evidence. Thereport will be reviewed by the Evaluation Officefor quality. In addition, an independent advisorypanel consisting of international experts ondevelopment and evaluation will review thereport for rigor of methodology quality and useof evidence, and soundness of analysis.

FOLLOW UP AND LEARNING

The evaluation report and recommendations willbe shared within the organization through a varietyof means. It will be presented to the September2007 session of the Executive Board. The reportwill be shared in advance with the senior manage-ment of UNDP for management response. Thereport will be posted on the UNDP corporateand EO Web sites for public access.

A N N E X 2 . P E O P L E C O N S U L T E D 4 1

UN SYSTEM, NEW YORK

MISSIONS TO THE UNITED NATIONS

Akram, H.E. Munir, Chairman of the Group of 77, Ambassador Extraordinary andPlenipotentiary, Permanent Representative,Mission of Pakistan

Alim, Abdul, First Secretary, Mission of Bangladesh

Briz-Gutierrez, Min. Jose Alberto, UNDPExecutive Board Vice President, MinisterPlenipotentiary, Deputy PermanentRepresentative, Mission of Guatemala

Diarra, H.E. Cheick Sidi, AmbassadorExtraordinary and Plenipotentiary,Permanent Representative, Mission of Mali

Ehousou, H.E. Jean-Marie, AmbassadorExtraordinary and Plenipotentiary,Mission of Benin

Enarson, Pelle, Counsellor, Economic andSocial Affairs, Mission of Sweden

Ghanshyam, Ruchi, Minister, Mission of IndiaHackett, H.E. Cristopher Fitzherbert,

Ambassador Extraordinary andPlenipotentiary, Permanent Representative,Mission of Barbados

Hart, Selwin, First Secretary, Mission of Barbados

Houngbedji, Fernande Afiavi, UNDP ExecutiveBoard Vice President, Second Counsellor,Mission of Benin

Kittikhoun, H.E. Alounko, AmbassadorExtraordinary and Plenipotentiary,Permanent Representative, Mission of Lao PDR

Kumalo, H.E. Dumisani Shadrack, AmbassadorExtraordinary and Plenipotentiary,Permanent Representative, Mission of South Africa

Le Roux, Peter, Counsellor, Mission of South Africa

Loizaga, H.E. Eladio, President of the High-Level Committee on South-SouthCooperation, Permanent Representative,UN High-Level Committee on the Reviewof South-South Cooperation, UN Missionof Paraguay

Nikitov, Andriy, Counselor, Mission of UkraineRenault, Caio, Secretary, Mission of BrazilSantizo, Melanie, Second Secretary, Mission

of GuatemalaSen, H.E. Nirupam, Ambassador Extraordinary

and Plenipotentiary, PermanentRepresentative, Mission of India

Sergeyev, H.E. Yuriy, AmbassadorExtraordinary and Plenipotentiary,Permanent Representative, Mission of Ukraine

Sorcar, Mohammad Ali, PermanentRepresentative, a.i., Mission of Bangladesh

Tarrago, H.E. Piragibe dos Santos, AmbassadorExtraordinary and Plenipotentiary, DeputyPermanent Representative, Mission of Brazil

Wang, H.E. Guangya, AmbassadorExtraordinary and Plenipotentiary,Permanent Representative, Mission of China

Yang, Ningning, Second Secretary, Mission of China

Yao, Wenlong, Minister Counsellor, Mission of China

UNDP

Dieye, Abdoulaye Mar, Deputy AssistantAdministrator and Deputy RegionalDirector, Regional Bureau for Arab States

Elizondo, Ligia, Director, Operations Support Group

Fianu, Martin, Senior Adviser and Chief ofStaff, Regional Bureau for Africa

Gatto, Susana, Coordinator, Regional Bureaufor Latin America and the Caribbean

Annex 2

PEOPLE CONSULTED

A N N E X 2 . P E O P L E C O N S U L T E D4 2

Gettu, Tegegnework, Chief of Staff andDirector, Executive Office

Gitta, Cosmas, Chief, Policy Development andDialogue, Special Unit for South-SouthCooperation

Hage, Juliette, Senior Programme Adviser,Regional Bureau for Arab States

Hanspach, Daniel, Donor Specialist, Bratislava,Regional Bureau for Europe and theCommonwealth of Independent States

Houngbo, Gilbert, Assistant Administrator and Regional Director, Regional Bureau for Africa

Jones, Terence, Deputy Assistant Administratorand Deputy Director, a.i., Bureau forDevelopment Policy

Karim, Moin, Programme Adviser, RegionalBureau for Arab States

Karl, Judith, Chief, Strategy and Policy, Bureaufor Crisis Prevention and Recovery

Kwan, William, Deputy Chief, EnvironmentallySustainable Development Group,Energy and Environment Programme,Montreal Protocol Unit, Bureau forDevelopment Policy

Malhotra, Kamal, Officer-in-Charge,Bureau for Development Policy, PovertyReduction Group

Manneh, Lamin, Regional Programme Advisor,Regional Bureau for Africa

Melkert, Ad, Associate AdministratorNair, Shashikant, Programme Specialist,

Regional Bureau for Asia and the PacificNuguid, Rogel, Chief of Staff, Special Unit for

South-South CooperationOliveira, Marielza, Focal Point, South-South

Cooperation, Regional Bureau for LatinAmerica and the Caribbean

Raheem, Jehan, Professor, Brandeis University,MA, Brandeis University and FormerDirector of Evaluation Office

Rajan, Ravi, Former Director, OperationsSupport Group

Ramachandran, Selva, Chief, Regional Bureaufor Asia and the Pacific

Russell, Andrew, Deputy Director, OperationsSupport Group

Simplicio, Francisco, Chief, KnowledgeManagement and Programme Operations,Special Unit for South-South Cooperation

Sonesson, Casper, Policy Adviser, Bureau forResources and Strategic Partnerships

Verdeaux, Gregoire, Focal Point, East-EastCooperation, Regional Bureau for Europe and the Commonwealth ofIndependent States

Zhou, Yiping, Director, Special Unit for South-South Cooperation

UN AGENCIES

Casey, Daphne, Chief, North American Office, UNV

Montes, Manuel, Chief, Policy Analysis andDevelopment, UNDESA

Saab, Rhea, Global Policy Section, Division ofPolicy and Planning, UNICEF

Tenzing, Karma, UNICEF

UN SYSTEM, GENEVA

Ahmed, Iqbal, Manager, Evaluation andKnowledge Base Section, ILO

Browne, Steven, Deputy Executive Director, ITCChutikul, Kobsak, Special Adviser to Secretary-

General, UNCTADEdmonds, Casper, Partnerships and

Development Cooperation, ILOFarahat, Magdi, Chief, Africa Section, ITCGeoffroy, Francisco, Chief, Office for Inter-

Regional Programmes, ITCHembrechts, Orphal, Chief, Development and

Cooperation Department, ILOIyer, Harish, Economic Affairs Officer,

Development Division, WTOKanawaty, George, Former Director, Training

Department, ILOKane, Raky, Resource Mobilisation Section, ILOMazal, Carlos, Senior Counsellor, External

Relations, WIPOMertens, Peter, Coordinator, External

Relations, UN and Inter-GovernmentalRelations, WHO

Mohamed, Imamo Ben, Regional TradePromotion Adviser, ITC


Pautasso, Marco, Acting Director-Adviser,Technical Assistance and Capacity-BuildingSector, WIPO

Priyadarshi, Shishir, Counsellor, DevelopmentDivision, WTO

Rodriguez, Beatriz, Asstistant Trade PromotionAdviser, ITC

Sabharwal, Narendra, Deputy Director-General,Technical Assistance and Capacity-BuildingSector, WIPO

Salomon, Mariela, Coordinator, CountrySupport Unit, PAHO

Winkelmann, Regina, External RelationsOfficer, External Relations, UN andInter-Governmental Relations, WHO

BARBADOS

UN SYSTEM

Clarke, Roberta, Regional Programme Director,UNIFEM

Cross, Philip, Representative, ITUDouglin, Carmeta, Liaison Officer, UNFPADoyle, Hartley, Programme Support

Consultant, UNDPGraham, Barbara, Representative, FAOGrimm, Jens, Project Manager, WFPHansen, Stein, Deputy Resident Representative,

UNDPMaycock, H.E. E. Besley, Former Permanent

Representative of Barbados to the UN Mohammed, Paula, Focal Point, UNDPOlsen, Tom, Representative, UNICEFTheodore-Gandi, Bernadette, Caribbean

Programme Coordinator, PAHO/WHOWatson, Gina, Representative, PAHO/WHOWiltshire, Rosina, Resident Representative,

UNDP

GOVERNMENT

Bartlett, Glendine, Barbados AgriculturalDevelopment and Marketng Corporation

Blackman, Ruth, Permanent Secretary, Ministryof Social Transformation

Cox, Martin, Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Economic Development

Gibbs, Derek, Senior Economist, Ministry ofEconomic Affairs

Harte, Marion, Barbados AgriculturalDevelopment and Marketng Corporation

Hunte-Cox, Donna, Human ResourceDevelopment Coordinator

Jones, Allan, Permanent Secretary, Office of thePrime Minister

Nelson, Angela, Projects Officer, Ministry ofFinance

Reid, Vincent, Permanent Secretary, Ministry ofFinance

Rudder, Simone, Senior Foreign Service Officer,Head, Millennium Affairs Division,Ministry of Economic Development

Sobers, Anthony, Chief Executive Officer,Barbados Investment and DevelopmentCorporation

Wiltshire, Juhu, Deputy Permanent Secretary,Office of the Prime Minister

CSOs & NGOs

Catwell, Wynthorp, President, ServiceIndustries, Barbados

Stuart, Douglas, Africa Initiative,South-South Group

Worrell, Desmond, Breadfruit Food Security Project

DONORS

Dunlop, M. Kathryn, Development Section,Canadian High Commission

EMBASSIES

Espert, Carlos, First Secretary, Embassy ofVenezuela

Frontado, H.E. Maria Corina, Ambassador ofVenezuela to Barbados, Embassy ofVenezuela

Mancini, Maria, Counsellor, First Secretary,Embassy of Venezuela

Oliviera, H.E Orlando Veas, Embassy of BrazilRoque, H.E. Pedro Garcia, Embassy of Cuba

BRAZIL

UN SYSTEM

Bolduc, Kim, UN Resident Coordinator/Resident Representative, UNDP


Chaves, Elizeu, UN South-South CooperationThematic Group, UNFPA

Gutmann, Raphaël, South-South CooperationAnalyst, UN South-South cCooperationThematic Group, UNDP Brazil

Lopez, Carlos, Former RR/RC, ExecutiveDirector, UNITAR

Munoz, Lucien, Deputy ResidentRepresentative, UNDP

Mussi, Carlos, UN South-South CooperationThematic Group, CEPAL

Passarelli, Carlos, Deputy and Coordinator,International Center for HIV/AIDSTechnical Cooperation,UNAIDS

Zepeda, Eduardo, Senior EmploymentEconomist, International Poverty Center

GOVERNMENT

Abreu, Alice, Former TCDC Coordinator, ABCCaporali, Renato, Corporative Manager,

International Cooperation, Industry SystemCorreia, Márcio, General Coordinator,

Technical Cooperation ReceivedMultilaterally, ABC

Madeira, José, International CooperationCoordinator, EMBRAPA

Miranda, Renalva , ABCMonteiro, Edson Marinho Duarte, General

Coordinator, Technical Cooperationbetween Developing Countries, ABC

Pinheiro Guimarães, Samuel, General Secretary,Ministry of External Relations

Pinheiro, Luiz Felipe Júnior, National Managerfor International Relations, Caixa

Soares, Cláudia, Ministry of Education and Culture

CSOs & NGOs

de Almeida, Paulo Roberto, Diplomat andProfessor, University Center of Brasilia(Uniceub)

Dourado, Maristela, Institutional Cooperationand Relations Coordinator, Missão Criança

Muzzi, Inácio, Vice President, Journalist,Companhia de Noticias

Rezende, Ricardo, Executive Manager,International Cooperation, SENAI

Santos, João Gilberto, International RelationsCoordinator, Ethos Institute

Silva, Célio, Vice President, Missão CriançaSinoti, Marta Litwinczik, Education Manager,

Missão Criança

DONORS

Ascher, Petra, Triangular CooperationCoordinator, GTZ

Kobayashi, Masahiro, Technical Coordinator,JICA

Munro, Miranda, DIFD Manager,Nogueira, Lívia Maria da Costa, Adviser, AECIUrbano, Pedro Flores, Spanish Cooperation

Coordinator, AECI

CHINA

Adam, Mahamat, UNV Project Officer,China-Africa Business Council

Amadio, Alessandro, Industrial DevelopmentOfficer, UNIDO

Chengwei, Huang, Ph. D., Professor,International Poverty Reduction Centre in China

Chongguang, Liao, Programme Officer, FAOCostello, Nicholas, First Counsellor,

Development and Co-operation, EUHou, Xin’an, Assistant Resident Representative,

Team Leader, Social and EconomicDevelopment Team, UNDP

Hübner, Wojciech, Chief Technical Advisor,Silk Road Initiative, UNDP

Jianping, Zhang, Programme Officer, South-South Co-operation Division, ChinaInternational Centre for Economic and Technical Exchanges, Ministry of Commerce

Kaiyong, Ge, Deputy Director, TrainingDivision, China-Africa Business Council

Kaukab, Rashid, Acting Head, Programme andResearch Coordination, South Centre

Lang, Tong, Programme Officer, InternationalPoverty Reduction Centre

Li, Zhang, Deputy Secretary General, Director,Secretariat, China-Africa Business Council

Liqun, Lu, Deputy Division Chief,International Poverty Reduction Centre


Ma, Jun, Programme Associate, Regional andSouth-South Co-operation Team, UNDP

Malik, Khalid, UN Resident Coordinator/UNDP Resident Representative

Meixiang, Zhou, Programme Manager, Socialand Economic Development Team,UNDP China

Meyer, Renaud, Deputy Country Director,UNDP

Runping, Du, Deputy Manager,International Finance Department,China Development Bank

Wei, Zhang, Deputy Director, South-SouthCo-operation Division, China InternationalCentre for Economic and TechnicalExchanges, Ministry of Commerce

Yongli, Zhao, Director, South-South Co-operation Division, China InternationalCentre for Economic and TechnicalExchanges, Ministry of Commerce

Yu, Vincente Paolo III, ProgrammeCoordinator, South Centre

Zhen, Carol, Credit Division III,International Finance Department,China Development Bank

GUATEMALA

UN SYSTEM

Aguilar, Mario, UNFPA, UNCTCuesta, Duillo Pérez, PMA, UNCTDuarte, Julián, UNICEF, UNCTEstrada, Maynor, FAO, UNCTLeal, Hilda, OPS/OMS, UNCTLecano, Leonardo Martínez, Director of

Program (Previous MINUGUA Officer),Strengthening of the Police Programme

Méndez, Ana María, Reform andModernization of the State Area of UNDPGuatemala Office, UNDP

Michon, Xavier, Country Director, UNDP Rohr, Beat, Resident Representative, UNDPSoberanis, Catalina, UNDP/OCR, UNCTVillatoro, Débora, UNV, UNCTGOVERNMENT

Álvarez, Horacio, Ministry of Education

Álvarez, Luis Ricardo, Technical Director,National Council for Science andTechnology (CONCYT)

Arana, Miriam Castañeda, Administrative Vice-Minister, Ministry of Education

Botrán, Andrés, Former Secretary, Secretaría deSeguridad Alimentaria y Nutricional

Caná, Delfina Mux, Secretary, Secretaría deSeguridad Alimentaria y Nutricional

Castro, María, Sub-secretary, Global andSectorial Policies, Secretary for Planningand Programming of the Presidency(SEGEPLAN)

Contreras, Rubén Nájera, Advisor to theSecretary-General, Secretariat for theCentral American Economic Integration(SIECA)

de León, Rodolfo, Magistrate, Agrarian Issues,Magister of Justice

de Méndez, Ana Eugenia Cintrón, Sub-secretary, International Cooperation,Secretary for Planning and Programming ofthe Presidency (SEGEPLAN)

Duarte, Carlos, Ministry of EducationFlores, Juan Antonio, Sub-director, Cooperation

for Development, Secretary for Planningand Programming of the Presidency(SEGEPLAN)

Fortuny, René Villegas, Planning Director,National Council for Science andTechnology (CONCYT)

Girón, Miguel Castillo, Coordinator, Sistemasde Apoyo Estratégico a la Presidencia(SIGEP), Vicepresidencia Project,Office of the Vice President

Polo, Luis Felipe, Legal and Human RightsAdvisor to the Vice President, Office of the Vice President

Quintana, Rolando Castillo, Political Advisor to the Vice President, Office of the Vice President

Reynoso, Marleny, Director, InternationalCooperation Direction, Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Salguero, Julieta, Sub-director, Unit forInternational Cooperation (UCONIME),Ministry of Education

Villatoro, Leila Carolina, Subdirector, UNMultilateral Policy, Ministry of Foreign Affairs


EMBASSIES

Bazo, Omar Morales, Ambassador toGuatemala, Embassy of Cuba

García, Jorge Pollo, Counseling Minister,Embassy of Cuba

Paez-Barreto, Renan, Ambassador toGuatemala, Embassy of Brazil

DIGNIFICATION AND PSYCHOSOCIALASSISTANCE TO VICTIMS OF THE ARMEDINTERNAL CONFLICT PROJECT (DIGAP)PROJECT PERSONNEL

Arévalo, Martin, Director, National Reparation Program

Beltranena, Roberta, Red Cross International Committee

Camey, Rosenda, Programme Officer, State-Society Relation Area, UNDP

de Voogd, Ella, Gender Advisor,Dutch Embassy

Elich, Christina, UNDP-DIGAP Technical Unit

Erazo, Judirth, Director, Team forCommunitarian Studies and PsychosocialAction Team

Flugue, Peter, International Red CrossFreiberg-Strauss, Jörg, Program Assistance to

the Peace and National ConciliationProgrammes, GTZ

Masaya, Fernando, State-Society Relation Area, UNDP

Meoño, Gustavo, Recuperation of the HistoricalArchive of the National Police Project

Peccerelli, Freddy, Guatemalan ForensicAnthropology Foundation

Tuyuc, Rosalina, National Reparation Program

DONORS

Hanawa, Mobuaki, Delegate to Segeplan, JICALópez, Francisco Sancho, Director for

Guatemala, AECIMitsuoka, Maki, Advisor, Rural Development

Project Formulation, JICATsuboi, Jaime, Sub-director, JICAYamauchi, Takahiro, First Secretary, Japan

Embassy to Guatemala, JICA

CSOs & NGOs

Alba, Mayra Alarcón, Executive Director,Fundación Myrna Mack

Calvaruso, Andrea, Independent EvaluationConsultant, DUNA, S.A., Monitoring andEvaluation Consulting

Saito, Claudio, Environment Expert

INDIA

Dubey, Muchkund, Director, Former Foreign Secretary of India, Council forSocial Development

Prakash, Manju Kalra, Senior Director andHead, South East Asia, Pacific Countriesand Multilateral Fora, Federation of IndianChambers of Commerce and Industry

Sharma, Primrose, Joint Secretary (ITEC),Ministry of External Affairs

Singh, Harsh, Assistant ResidentRepresentative, UNDP

Tripathy, Shipra, Confederation of Indian Industries

Zewide, Genet, Ambassador of Ethiopia toIndia, Embassy of Ethiopia

MALI

Byll-Cataria, Joseph, Représentant Résident,UNDP Mali

Diallo, Mamadou, Représentant, UNFPADiallo, Oumou Bolly, Conseil National de la

Société CivileDiallo, Yaya Alpha, Conseil National de la

Société CivileH.E., Ambassadeur d’Afrique du Sud, MaliH.E., Ambassadeur de Cuba, MaliH.E., Ambassadeur de Tunisie, MaliKeïta, Souleymane Mansamaka, Chargé des

relations avec les Partenaires, ConseilNational de la Société Civile

Sangaré, Sekou, Coordinateur, Conseil Nationalde la Société Civile

Simpara, Ely, Secrétaire génbéral, CCA ONGSouleymane, Bocoum, Responsable Groupe

Thématique du Développement RuraleTouré, Boureïma Allaye, Président, Conseil

National de la Société Civile

SOUTH AFRICA

Bathily, Cheik B., Assistant Représentant, FAODraper, Peter, Trade Analyst, South African

Institute of International Affairs Ekoko, Francois, Africa Regional Chief, South-

South Cooperation, UNDP Kassam, Ahmed, Special Advisor, NEPADMacharia, Janet, Gender and Development

Policy Advisor, UNDP South AfricaMasilela, Temba Sipho, Executive Director,

Human Sciences Research CouncilMkhize, Herbert, Executive Director, National

Economic Development and Labour CouncilMotlhoioa, Kaybee, Executive Manager,

Small Enterprise Development AgencyMwaniki, John, Executive Director, Secretariat,

TECHNONET AfricaScholastica, Kimarya, UN Resident Coordinator/

Resident Representative, UNDPThenabadu, Mahinda, Director,

TECHNONET Asia

THAILAND

Bastiaans, Eduard Rene, Chief, TechnicalCooperation Section, UNESCAP

Fong, Elizabeth, Regional Manager, RegionalService Centre, Bangkok, UNDP

Kulthanan, Sirisupa, Assistant ResidentRepresentative, Programme Manager,IPDP Unit, UNDP

Luuzan, Batdelger, Policy Specialist for Asiaand the Pacific, Public-Private Partnershipsfor Service Delivery, Regional ServiceCentre, Bangkok, UNDP

Nkala, Denis, South-South Response Coordinator,Regional Service Centre, Bangkok UNDP

Viryasiri, Vudhisit, Director, MultilateralPartnership Cooperation, ThailandInternational Cooperation Agency, Ministryof Foreign Affairs, Thailand, UNDP

Yuxue, Xue, Deputy Resident Representative,UNDP


A N N E X 3 . R E F E R E N C E S 4 9

Brewster, Marcia M., 2007. ‘Internal evaluation of the implementation activities supported under theThird Cooperation Framework by the Special Unit for South-South Cooperation.’ NautilusInternational Development Consulting, Inc., New York. 20 April.

High-Level Committee on South-South Cooperation, 2007. ‘Review of Progress in theImplementation of the Buenos Aires Plan of Action, The New Directions Strategy.’ 15th Sessionof the HLC. New York. 29 May – 1 June 2007.

High-Level Committee on the Review of TCDC among Developing Countries, 2003. MarrakechDeclaration on South-South Cooperation.

High-Level Committee on the Review of TCDC among Developing Countries, 2003. ‘RevisedGuidelines for the Review of Policies and Procedures Concerning Technical Cooperation amongDeveloping Countries.’ 13th Session of the HLC. May.

High-Level Committee on the Review of TCDC among Developing Countries, 2003. Statement onbehalf of the Group of 77 and China by Ambassador Mohamed Bennouna, PermanentRepresentative of the Kingdom of Morocco to the United Nations and Chairman of the Group of77 before the 13th Session of the High-Level Committee. May.

Rahman, Shafiquer M., 2003. Evaluation Report on the Second Cooperation Framework for TechnicalCooperation among Developing Countries: 2001–2003. Abacus International Management, L.L.C.,New York. 10 March.

United Nations Conference on Technical Cooperation among Developing Countries, 1978. TheBuenos Aires Plan of Action. Buenos Aires, Argentina.

UNDP, 2007. Assessment of Development Results – An Evaluation of UNDP’s Contribution to Lao PDR.Evaluation Office.

UNDP, 2007. Evaluation of the National Human Development Report System. Evaluation Office.

UNDP, 2007. Evaluation of Results Based Management at UNDP. Evaluation Office.

UNDP, 2007. Evaluation of Second Regional Cooperation Framework for Asia and the Pacific 2002–2006.Evaluation Office.

UNDP, 2007. Evaluation of Second Regional Cooperation Framework for Latin America and the Caribbean2002–2006. Evaluation Office.

UNDP, 2007. Report on the Implementation of the Third Cooperation Framework for South-SouthCooperation (2005–2007). Report of the Administrator. New York. June.

UNDP, 2006. Results Management Guide.

UNDP, 2005. ‘Third Cooperation Framework for South-South Cooperation.’ Executive Board, FirstRegular Session, 20–28 January. New York. DP/CF/South-South Cooperation/3/Rev.1.

UNDP, 2004. Evaluation of Second Global Cooperation Framework. UNDP Evaluation Office.

UNDP, 2003. Report on the Implementation of the Second Cooperation Framework for South-SouthCooperation (2001–2003). Report of the Administrator. New York. June.

UNDP, 1999. 20 Years of South-South Partnership Building, 1978–1998, An Assessment of TCDC.SU/TCDC. June.

Annex 3

REFERENCES

A N N E X 4 . S U R V E Y Q U E S T I O N S A N D R E S P O N S E S 5 1

Please respond to the following questions as specifically and candidly as you can in this brief questionnaire.Individual responses will be kept strictly confidential.

Annex 4

SURVEY QUESTIONS AND RESPONSESEVALUATION OF SOUTH-SOUTH COOPERATION AT UNDP

1. Please indicate whether the respondent is:

From UNDP 51 34%

From UN 30 20%

From Funds and Programme 22 15%

From UN Specialized Agencies 46 31%

Total 149 100%

2. How explicit is South-South cooperation in your organization’s mandate?

Explicit 63 43%

Somewhat explicit 55 37%

Not explicit 30 20%

Total 148 100%

3. To what extent has your country adopted South-South cooperation as part of its development strategy?

Assigned top priority 41 28%

Assigned moderate priority 61 42%

Not a significant priority 44 30%

Total 146 100%

4. Is the promotion of South-South cooperation a UNDAF objective in your country?

Yes 39 29%

No 97 71%

Total 136 100%

5. Is South-South cooperation part of your ongoing programme of cooperation with the national government?

Yes 91 62%

No 56 38%

Total 147 100%

A N N E X 4 . S U R V E Y Q U E S T I O N S A N D R E S P O N S E S5 2

6. If yes, what is the nature of South-South cooperation that your organization supports? (Tick as many as relevant.)

Regional 60 71%

Intra- or subregional 48 56%

NGO-to-NGO 21 25%

Government-to-government 62 73%

Private-public sector partnerships 25 29%

Triangular 21 25%

7. Have there been significant changes in the priority assigned to South-South cooperation by your organization in your country over the last 5 years?

Yes 60 43%

No 79 57%

Total 139 100%

8. If yes, how is the change reflected?

Top number is the count of respondents Substantial Increase No change Decreaseselecting the option. Bottom % is percent of increasethe total respondents selecting the option.

Allocation of financial resources 7 31 20 012% 53% 34% 0%

Number of initiatives or programmes 12 44 6 119% 70% 10% 2%

Networks 12 40 9 020% 66% 15% 0%

Quality of exchange and cooperation 7 44 9 012% 73% 15% 0%

9. How would you rate UNDP’s contribution over the past 5 years to the promotion of South-South cooperation in your country along the following dimensions:

Top number is the count of Not at all 2 3 4 Extremely respondents selecting the option. effective effectiveBottom % is percent of the total respondents selectingthe option.

Advocacy 16 33 46 19 1 14% 29% 40% 17% 1%

Policy advice and support 15 36 41 23 1 13% 31% 35% 20% 1%

Promoting public-private partnerships 21 42 31 12 3 19% 39% 28% 11% 3%

Exchanging knowledge 16 24 38 25 13 14% 21% 33% 22% 11%

Others (specify) 8 13 10 7 021% 34% 26% 18% 0%

Overall Effectiveness 16 31 42 17 215% 29% 39% 16% 2%

A N N E X 4 . S U R V E Y Q U E S T I O N S A N D R E S P O N S E S 5 3

10.How familiar are you with the role and functioning of the Special Unit of UNDP for South-South cooperation?

Extremely familiar 8 5%

Somewhat familiar 55 37%

Not familiar 84 57%

Total 147 100%

11. If familiar, then how effective has the Special Unit been in mainstreaming the idea of South-South cooperation: Effectiveness in mainstreaming South-South cooperation within

Top number is the count of Not at all 2 3 4 Extremely respondentsselecting the option. effective effectiveBottom % is percent of the total respondents selectingthe option.

The country 18 17 16 3 033% 31% 30% 6% 0%

UNDP 4 19 20 11 17% 35% 36% 20% 2%

Other UN Agencies 8 24 12 6 016% 48% 24% 12% 0%

12. What are the modalities of South-South cooperation coordination that occurs among UN organizations in your country? Tick as many as relevant

Joint programmes 28 24%

Regular consultations 25 21%

Ad hoc meetings and events 77 65%

Others (specify) 7 6%

None 29 25%

13. Looking ahead, how do you assess the future importance of South-South cooperation in your host country?

Will grow rapidly in importance 54 39%

Will grow modestly in importance 57 41%

Will remain at current level of significance 27 19%

Will decline in importance 2 1%

Total 140 100%

14.Has your organization conducted any evaluations of South-South cooperation in your country in the past 5 years?

Yes 7 5%

No 135 95%

Total 142 100%

15. If yes, how many? Could you please send separately copies of such evaluation?

1 to 3 7 78%

4 to 6 2 22%

More than 6 0 0%

Total 9 100%

A N N E X 4 . S U R V E Y Q U E S T I O N S A N D R E S P O N S E S5 4

16.Does your organization have a designated Focal Point on South-South cooperation?

Yes 44 31%

No 96 69%

Total 140 100%

17. If you would like, please use this space to share your views on how the UNDP can further promote South-South cooperation.

50 Responses

18. Identify key South-South cooperation initiatives undertaken in your country in recent years.

47 Responses

19. Provide an assessment of why initiatives have been successful and less successful.

37 Responses

20. Offer your realistic assessment of the future prospects for South-South cooperation initiatives and the reasoning behind your judgement.

46 Responses

A N N E X 5 . I N D I C A T O R S 5 5

To facilitate better understanding of what consti-tutes key South-South cooperation activities and how to evaluate them, the following set ofindicators were adapted from the RevisedGuidelines for the Review of Policies and ProceduresConcerning Technical Cooperation among DevelopingCountries; High Level Committee on the review ofTCDC among developing countries, ThirteenthSession, 27–30 May 2003.

1. NORMATIVE INDICATORS

1.1 South-South cooperation adopted as acorporate policy and priority of the UnitedNations organization, as reflected in theirprogramming and operations manuals.

1.2 Extent to which South-South cooperationmodalities have been integrated either as astrategy or distinct element of the UNDAFand country, regional or global programmes.

1.3 Specific units or individuals designated asfocal points.

1.4 Advocacy and promotion for South-Southcooperation undertaken.

1.5 Funding for South-South cooperation system-ized under regular/programme budgets(actual or estimated resources allocated forSouth-South cooperation purposes).

2. OPERATIONAL RESULTS INDICATORS

2.1 Extent of support, under South-South cooper-ation arrangements, to developing countriesin their followup to major global conferences(as applicable) and the ensuing results.

2.2 Forums/events facilitated for the furtheranceof South-South policy dialogue, intellectualexchanges, trade/investment promotion, capaci-ties/needs matching, business-to-businessfairs, etc. (specify topics, sectors, participating

countries and entities and, to the extentpossible, their results).

2.3 Types and numbers of South-South networks(including information networks) or centres ofexcellence supported and the ensuing results(specify sector and participating countriesand institutions).

2.4 Major regional, subregional and interregionalSouth-South cooperation schemes supportedand the ensuing results.

2.5 South-South cooperation activities involvedthe private sector and NGOs.

2.6 Concrete South-South transfer/exchange oftechnologies, expertise and skills as a result ofthe concerned agency’s direct intervention(types, sectors, numbers of exports, etc.).

3. INNOVATIVE APPROACHES TOSOUTH-SOUTH COOPERATION

3.1 Development of innovative approaches thathave substantially expanded South-Southcooperation (especially in terms of intra-Southcooperation in trade, investment and finance,industry and enterprise development, agricul-ture and food security, environment andenergy, health and population, informationand communication).

3.2 Successful practices identified, compiled anddisseminated for possible replication (to theextent possible, specify experiences replicated).

3.3 Innovative approaches to mobilizing resourcesfor South-South cooperation (includingfrom developing-country governments,donors under triangular arrangements, andother sources).

3.4 Innovative approaches to broadeningpartnerships for South-South cooperation,especially with the private sector and NGOs.

Annex 5

INDICATORS

Government & Nonprofit

UNDP CONTRIBUTION TO SOUTH-SOUTH COOPERATION